Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

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.