Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The controversy around Novak Djokovic's visa brought to light again a much greater tragedy, one that unfortunately has not received nearly enough attention. Djokovic was detained in Melbourne's Park Hotel alongside more than 30 refugees and asylum seekers who have been locked in there, in some cases, for more than a year. Among the men held there, there are refugees who have been in detention for almost a decade. Think about it for a minute: forced to stay for almost a year, locked up. You cannot leave the hotel and you have very little access to fresh air. It sounds anything but ideal. This is like a permanent state of quarantine and lockdown for these people, and those of us who have done some quarantine remember how hard that was. For the refugees in detention in Australia, whether in a hotel or any other detention centre, onshore or offshore, there is no end date. For those of us who did lockdown and had to self-isolate et cetera, there was an end date. The refugees came looking for safety and found themselves in indefinite detention. We may have stopped the boats and people arriving from offshore to Australia under treacherous conditions, but we cannot forget that there were real people on those boats.

This government is only concerned with instilling in the Australian public fear about asylum seekers. That's what we see time and time again. The Prime Minister even went so far as to deny that the men held at the Melbourne hotel were genuine refugees. He instead accused them, on 2GB radio, of simply not wanting to return to their home countries. This was just plain wrong. Reports suggest, in fact, that there are 25 refugees and seven asylum seekers currently held in the Park Hotel. Let's be clear: some form of administrative detention for people without valid visas is common around the world, and no-one is advocating for an open slather approach. But it should be designed to be temporary, while a person's application is being assessed.

Evidence from around the world shows that Australia is unique in its policy of indefinite detention. For example, on average, people are detained for 48 days in the US and 24 in Canada, while 90 per cent of those in the UK's immigration system are held for less than six months. As of September 2021, Australia's own average is almost two years—689 days. I'm not sure if that's a record that we can be proud of.

Detention was never meant to be indefinite. In fact, indefinite arbitrary detention is a violation of international human rights laws. These people have not conducted themselves as, or been found to be, criminals. No court has found them guilty of committing wrongdoing or harm to someone else. The effects on these men, women and children in indefinite detention can't be ignored.

Since 2013, more than 3,000 asylum seekers and refugees have been transferred to offshore detention, and the government has done this, again, without a clear plan, without a clear end date. As a result, some people have found themselves in detention for almost a decade, where they have suffered abuse, inhumane treatment, and medical neglect in many circumstances. In this time, 12 people have died in Australia's offshore detention system, including from murder, medical neglect and suicide, not to mention the long-term costs to people's mental health. And, again, it appears the government has no plan or solution for these people.

Adults should be detained for the shortest time necessary. As I said earlier, no-one is advocating for open slather; there have to be processes and there has to be a system whereby people come to this country. But adults should not be detained indefinitely, and children should not be placed in immigration detention at all. We're talking about children. Many of us in this room have had children. Think of your children as five-year-olds, two-year-olds or seven-year-olds being detained in a detention centre. It is absolutely abhorrent.

The annual cost of detaining a single asylum seeker in PNG or Nauru is around $3.4 million. But the cost is just one side of this argument. It's ultimately the human toll that should concern us all. For a long time I've called for more humane treatment of refugees here in Australia. For example, on this side we've supported the use of community detention, where appropriate, while people are having their applications finalised. That is both more humane and more cost-effective.

That is something that became very evident to those Australians who followed the case of the Murugappans—Priya, Nades and their Australian-born daughters, Kopika and Tharnicaa—the Tamil family in Biloela. We all would have seen them on the news on our TVs. They had lived happily in the Queensland town of Biloela for four years. They were welcomed in the community. The community wanted them to stay. They were part of the community. They'd contributed to the town through their work. And they'd made many, many friends in the community. This is why there was such an outcry from the people of that town when the family, after having their application for asylum rejected, were removed from their home and detained on Christmas Island. There's been a strong and vocal campaign by the people of Biloela to have the family returned to their home.

This campaign, and the family's plight, touched many around the nation. The family was separated after the youngest daughter was evacuated from Christmas Island to receive urgent medical treatment in Perth. Australians watched in disbelief as the government initially refused to reunite the family. The outcry was so great that Minister Hawke finally granted the family a three-month bridging visa so that they could live in community detention in Perth, close to their other daughter. The family has now won a court challenge against the immigration minister's decision that effectively barred them from reapplying for bridging visas. All family members, excluding Tharnicaa, have now been granted bridging visas until December 2022. In this case, community support is exceptionally strong for this family to be returned to live in the community they love and which has welcomed them so warmly. The immigration minister could ensure this happens with the stroke of a pen, if he chose to do so.

But what this case illustrates is that Australians—when they are able to see and understand the people behind the headlines—understand the need for greater compassion. They also understand the need for alternative solutions to indefinite detention. For example, this government should take advantage of other countries' offers to resettle these people. We, on this side, have long called for the Australian government to accept New Zealand's repeated offers to take some of these refugees, yet the government continues to refuse. I believe we must work towards ending indefinite detention and finding long-term domestic and regional solutions.

The Djokovic case has exposed the treatment of refugees in Australia for the world to see. The attention from national and international media gave these refugees some hope. It's our job now to ensure that they are treated fairly and humanely.

It is possible to have strong borders while still actively working towards a more humane, long-term regional solution. Australia is a compassionate nation. Australians have welcomed migrants and refugees, throughout the 200 years of white settlement, from all over the world. We can look at the Chinese students after the Tiananmen Square massacres: we gave those who were here as students, and others, the ability to stay. We have welcomed people from Kosovo, from Bosnia—from all over the world, when there have been tragic situations taking place. Migration and refugees are part of this country. That's what has made us the wonderful country that we are. We should stop using these people as political footballs—because that's all we're doing: we're using human lives as political footballs to score political points. And it's wrong.

I recall one of the most embarrassing moments I've ever had in my life, talking politics with the mayor of Athens. I had a meeting with him in 2012, I think it was, and he asked me about the issues and problems we were having with refugees and boat arrivals. He asked me this question: 'How many have arrived by boat, not authorised, in your country?' At the time I think it was around 6,000, and I said to him, 'Approximately 6,000 or 6½ thousand,' and he roared with laughter. He said to me: 'And you call that a problem, 6,000 in a country of less than 20 million'—at the time—'in a continent the size of Australia? We have 500,000 unauthorised people here in Athens alone and we still haven't made the fuss you are making over in Australia.' That's the proof in the pudding that, as a nation that respects human rights, we should adhere to those human rights and we should be a more humane government and nation on these issues.