Siewert, Sen Rachel

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:50): I rise to oppose the approval of the designation of the Republic of Nauru as a regional processing country. I want to start, as I started a previous contribution in the debate on the legislation, by remembering the people we are talking about. We seem to forget that these are people fleeing persecution, terror, torture and inhumane treatment in their homelands. And what we are doing through this process is further subjecting these people, who are fleeing for their lives and the lives of their families, to the inhumane conditions that will exist in the facilities on Nauru. In the first instance, they will be in tents. The government has not ensured that the facilities will meet the humanitarian standards that the Houston report said should be in place. Those standards are not being met and will not be met. The government is relying on the so-called Houston solutions but it is not implementing the recommendations that humanitarian standards should be in place. In fact, this is why Nauru did not work last time, and it is why people then had poor mental health and are in fact still suffering from the effects of being held on Nauru for excessive periods of time. It is interesting that in answer to questions today from Senator Hanson-Young, our portfolio holder on this issue, the minister would not commit to what period of time we are talking about and would not commit to what a no disadvantage test means. It seems to be elastic and indefinite. The government wants to walk both sides of the road. They want to have a so-called no disadvantage test but they do not want to say how long it will apply. In questions to Senator Lundy, representing the minister in this place in the debate on this motion, Senator Milne articulated the concern that some people had—and Senator Hanson-Young raised this too—that for Malaysia it would be something like 76 years. Senator Lundy's response was, 'That's something we will work out in full consultation with the UNHCR.' Has the government done that yet? Senator Hanson-Young: The UNHCR advice is that they cannot do it. Senator SIEWERT: In fact, the UNHCR advice is that they cannot do it. So what does the government mean by 'no disadvantage test'? Are people going to be stuck on Nauru for 76 years? How long are they going to be there—20 years? That is why, at least, the government needs to be committing to a time line of detention of individuals on Nauru, and that is why Senator Hanson-Young will be addressing this issue through amendments. Imagine fleeing violence, persecution, terror and torture and then not knowing your future—being held for an indefinite period of time in inhumane circumstances where this government has not guaranteed that humanitarian standards will be met. People could potentially be there for vast periods of time. We have been told that pregnant women may be sent there for vast periods of time. Children born there could be held for vast periods of time. Children could be held there for long periods of time—20 years. They could enter adulthood being held in an indeterminate future when they are fleeing from a country where their futures were also indeterminate and they were subject to violence. I cannot get away from the fact that these people are fleeing for their lives. They are fleeing war. They are fleeing persecution. And here we are persecuting them further because we have not addressed this issue properly. Senator Humphries says this is our policy that they are changing. Well, the Greens do not support children in detention. Senator Humphries was proposing that the government is changing this because it is our policy that has been in place. In fact, that is completely untrue. We do not support children in detention. We were not talking about circumstances where the humanitarian intake had been increased and those people were being resettled. The government has only just announced it will increase the humanitarian intake. We have been proposing for years that the humanitarian intake be increased, that people be processed properly and that we restart the resettlement process—so that people do not have to get in boats, so they know they will be properly assessed and resettled, so they do not have to risk their lives. But, as people are saying, they have had to flee and they have had to take their lives in their hands to flee. And how do we treat those people? We put them in tents in Nauru. These people who have fled are the same as any one of us. I believe that anyone, to protect their family, to protect themselves and their families and their children, would attempt to flee. And what do we do? We lock them up in detention for indeterminate periods of time—on Nauru. And, in the not too distant future, we will have another approval in here designating Manus Island as well. And then where else? Will we find other islands dotted around the place to put detention centres to keep people in inhumane conditions for indeterminate periods of time—simply for trying to protect themselves and their families from persecution, torture, terror, war and violence? Let us keep remembering the people that we are talking about. We keep forgetting why people are fleeing in the first place. We have an organisation that is apparently now going to be put in place to run this process—Transfield Services, I think they are called—which has no experience in this area. Great; let's just keep racking up the problems on Nauru! Senator Hanson-Young: An engineering company. Senator SIEWERT: An engineering company—great! And today it was announced that the Salvation Army would be providing some support services—an organisation that at least cares. The government is not providing those services—and the coalition doesn't—so the Salvation Army will be there to care for these people. What I would like to know is what confidentiality agreements they will be forced to sign. You can bet your bottom dollar that they will not be able to do advocacy for individuals for problems that they see. Senator Hanson-Young: Let alone speak to the media. Senator SIEWERT: Will they be able to speak to the media? Will they be able to tell the media of the circumstances in which they are operating and in which they find refugees living on Nauru? Will they be guaranteed that, without fear or favour, they will be able to speak out on behalf of those individuals? I heard on the radio this morning that they were saying they would still be able to do advocacy, but a systemic advocacy. Systemic advocacy is very, very important, but individual advocacy on behalf of individuals in these detention centres will be absolutely essential. Is the government prepared to say now that these caring people will be able to advocate specifically on behalf of individuals and speak publicly in the media about what they see on Nauru and wherever else they provide support? Will they be able to speak publicly about that now—not in five years time or 10 years time, but now—of the circumstances that they find? I would appreciate it if, in the summing up of this debate, the government could answer that particular question. Will the government also provide publicly the contracts that these service organisations will sign with the government so that the community is confident that there are no secrecy or gag clauses in these policies? The government today, also, would not give any commitment around the timing of when the humanitarian intake would proceed. They could not answer that question. Just when is that intake going to increase, and what are the details around direct resettlement? Those questions still remain unanswered. As has been articulated in this place on several occasions, we are now up to 2,009 people arriving since the bill went through this place. This sends a clear message that people are still desperate. People need to know that there is an alternative avenue to coming to Australia, so there is a need for the government not only to say that they are going to increase the humanitarian intake but actually to start that process. This is not the way to treat the most desperate and vulnerable people, who are fleeing for their lives and those of their families. These are people who have risked everything to escape that persecution, and how do we treat them? We throw them in another camp indefinitely, because we are not welcoming; we are not prepared to treat people in a decent manner. Australians, I think, can and should be doing better in helping the most vulnerable people who are desperately seeking asylum. These are refugees. And how do we treat them? We shove them on an island, in a tent, do not give them adequate support, do not bother to make sure that they reach humanitarian standards and we keep them there for as long as we want, really. And we are expected just to trust the government that they are somehow going to work this out; that they will come to some time line eventually. Actually, what this is about is 'out of sight, out of mind'. We are now going to be subjecting people to more inhumane treatment and to poor health outcomes, particularly to poor mental health outcomes. And we think that we are a first-world nation, that we are a developed community, and yet we think it is okay to treat people that way—to send children into detention indefinitely, to send pregnant women into detention indefinitely, to send men into detention indefinitely? Since when is that the action of a decent, civilised and fair society? It is not the action of a decent, civilised and fair society to treat our fellow humans that way—people who have already suffered so much. No, we do not trust the government to implement the no disadvantage test. In fact, they do not know what they are talking about; they do not know what that means. They certainly have not articulated it in here, and they cannot. Senator Lundy's attempt was, 'Oh, we will talk to UNHCR about it.' I do not know whether they have or not, and I do not know whether we have been told this or not, but the UNHCR says that you cannot. What we are doing here is condemning people to inhumane treatment for an indefinite period of time. It is not reasonable, it is not decent and it is not fair. We will be opposing this motion.