Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the Select Committee report on Nauru. I rise in relation to a number of contributions made by government ministers and government senators in which they made remarks about the alleged witch-hunt and the alleged airing of allegations without substantial evidence. I want to touch on a couple of points that I think are really pertinent to this debate.

A submission came before the committee from the Hon. Geoffrey M Eames AM QC. Mr Eames submitted to the committee that, in December 2010, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Republic of Nauru by the President, Marcus Stephen. Mr Eames held that position until 13 March 2014. In his submission, Mr Eames states:

My resignation was forced, because the Nauru government of President Baron Waqa MP had revoked my visa, thus making it impossible for me to perform the role of Chief Justice. The actions of the Nauru government constituted a series of flagrant breaches of the Rule of Law. The fact that the government is not committed to the Rule of Law should be a matter of concern to the Australian government.

He goes on to say:

Resident Magistrate and Registrar of the Supreme Court, Peter Law, was arrested on 19 January 2014, forced on to an aeroplane and deported under police escort. No reasons were given to him by the government for this extraordinary action. The reasons, however, are now very clear – Mr Law had offended the Minister for Justice and Border Control, Mr David Adeang, by making interim orders, as Registrar, restraining the unlawful deportation of two expatriate businessmen, an Australian, Rod Henshaw, and a Fijian, Mohammed Haneef.

If that was not enough, Mr Richard Britten's appointment as commissioner of the Nauru Police Force was terminated on 19 July 2013. This is the evidence that this committee has taken. It has been publicised. It has not been rebutted. It is not unsubstantiated. It is a simple fact. People were arrested and deported—three people who, I would contend, were assisting the government of Nauru, the Republic of Nauru, in providing an independent police force and an independent judiciary. Any semblance of transparency, justice and accountability which the Australian government could rely on is now no longer there. This is the evidence that came to this committee.

We have had contributions in this chamber that said we dealt with 'unsubstantiated allegations' that have all been dealt with by other parties. I am sure that Senator Carr is in vehement agreement with me when I say that that is not the case. That is simply not the case. No-one has rebutted the contentions of Mr Law or Mr Eames. The Australian federal policeman has basically remained silent, as he probably needs to do in terms of his contract of employment.

We do know that there is an absence of ability to prosecute, to forensically evaluate, in the Nauruan police force. We know that because this minister has recognised it. He sent additional officers to Nauru to assist them in building their capacity. It is extraordinary and exceedingly strange that a minister can look one way and row another. He says that all of the Moss review allegations and all of the allegations that have been made before the four recent inquiries are all being capably dealt with by the responsible Republic of Nauru—who threw out the Australian Police Commissioner, threw out the Chief Justice and threw out the Chief Magistrate. They deported them—house arrest and on you go. Now we are expected to take from the minister and the minister representing the minister in the Senate that it is all okay and that these 'untested' allegations will all be handled competently by the government of Nauru.

We know that other nations have expressed concern about supporting funds that go to justice in Nauru. I think the New Zealand government is on the record as having expressed concern. I think our own foreign minister is actually on the record has having expressed some concern. But, no, people can come into this chamber and say that the evidence before the Nauru select committee was untested and basically not factual. I would like to see the evidence that was put before the committee that rebutted not claims, but facts. Where was the evidence that rebutted these facts?

If we are going to rely on the justice system in Nauru to provide good, humane, legally transparent treatment for people who may settle in Nauru from the RPC or who may be in the RPCs and have a complaint against someone, then the initial recommendation is that this government give back resourcing for the judiciary and the police force to get in place a proper and transparent police and judicial system that includes child protection legislation. Apparently child protection legislation does not exist in Nauru. It should have child protection laws.

We have the awful situation where the allegations have not been rebutted and people have endured awful criminality. The Nauruan police, whether because of a lack of training or a lack of resources, have not acted on those. People under the control and care of Australia are not being treated in the same way as they would be in this great country of ours. That is Australia's shame. We cannot allow this to go on. These people need to have access to a judicial system and the care and help of a police force that is adequately trained and resourced and capable of prosecuting. There is no evidence that that is the case.

One of the firmest recommendations the committee made was that the Australian government, if it wants to rely on the Republic of Nauru in these matters, should make sure Nauru have the wherewithal. It should make sure they have the competent people and the assistance to carry out prosecutions, to collect forensic evidence and to protect children in detention and in the community. There is no evidence that we have stepped to the plate in respect of that. That is the first recommendation that this government should take up.

The minister's responsibility is very, very clear. But he has done exactly the opposite of what he should have. He has labelled this inquiry a witch-hunt. He has labelled it a political stunt. But the awful reality is that the Nauruan police force is deficient in its prosecutorial capacity. It is deficient in its collection of forensic evidence. It is not through any great fault of theirs. There are only 100 people in the Nauruan police force. We cannot expect them to act with the capacity of the Australian Federal Police. But we can make sure they have resources, backup and training. We can provide that and we are not at the moment. We have some Australian police officers trying to do their best in Nauru as we speak. But it needs to be a continuous, reinforced, funded effort.

We really need to get serious about this. We cannot have Australia's reputation at risk because we have underresourced the police force and magisterial areas of the Republic of Nauru. They are making a lot of money out of Australia's efforts there. We need to get on the job here and fix a few things.