Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

That is correct.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: To amend amendment (4) on 7791, which has been moved by Senator Hanson-Young?

That is right—in regard to matters that relate to public interest, public disclosure and residence criteria.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: So you are seeking leave to make those two amendments?

I am.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Amendment (4), item 8B, omit subsection 197AAA(4), substitute:

Minister must have regard to matters of public interest

  (3A) When making a residence determination under subsection (1), (2) or (3) the Minister must have regard to the public interest.

Minister must not make a residence determination in certain circumstances

  (3B) Despite subsections (1), (2) and (3), the Minister must not make a residence determination under any of those subsections in relation to a person if the Minister has been given an adverse security assessment in respect of the person by the Organisation.

  (3C) Despite subsections (1), (2) and (3), the Minister must not make a residence determination under any of those subsections that a person reside at a specified place unless the Minister is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the living conditions at that place are of a higher standard than a place covered by the definition of immigration detention in subsection 5(1) where the person would otherwise be detained.

Minister may refuse to make determination in certain circumstances

(4) Despite subsections (1), (2) and (3), the Minister may refuse to make a determination under one or more of those subsections if:

  (a) the Minister is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the minor to do so; or

  (b) the Minister is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so;

  (c) if subsection (2) applies—both:

     (i) the Minister has been given an adverse security assessment in respect of a member of the family unit of the minor mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) by the Organisation; and

     (ii) the family unit notifies the Minister that the family unit does not want to be separated; or

  (d) if subsection (3) applies—both:

     (i) the Minister has been given an adverse security assessment in respect of the guardian mentioned in paragraph (3)(c) by the Organisation; and

     (ii) the guardian notifies the Minister that the guardian and minor do not want to be separated.

Note: Section 4AA sets out principles relevant to making a determination under this subsection.

(2) Amendment (4), item 8B, at the end of section 197AAA, add:

Definitions

(9) In this section:

  adverse security assessment has the same meaning as in Part IV of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

  Organisation means the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

The proposals that Senator Hanson-Young has outlined here are, in general terms, worthy of the support of this chamber. When the bill creating the Australian Border Force was before the parliament, Labor maintained that the legislation did not prevent staff and contractors in detention facilities from speaking publicly on conditions in the centre. We are still confident that that is the legal position. There is no intention, as far as we are concerned, for the suppression of potential whistleblowers, because staff and contractors continue to be protected by the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The disclosure restrictions of the Border Force Act relate to criminal investigation, national security and other sensitive matters; they do not concern comments that might be made about the treatment and the living conditions of detainees. Nonetheless, Labor supports these amendments because they will make it absolutely clear that disclosures in the public interest are lawful and protected, and I understand that this was a position that we carried through the Senate inquiry on that matter.

The second issue goes to the issue of media access. Labor has always opposed the excessive secrecy with which this government has chosen to cloak the administration of the offshore detention facilities. I know there are now extraordinary costs being imposed by other governments that nonetheless I cannot believe have been put in place without consultation with the Australian government.

Asylum seekers are human beings whose rights must be respected. This includes being housed in a place of safety with access to adequate health care, social services and educational opportunities. Equally important is the right of the Australian people to know what is being done in their name and at great expense. They are entitled to know how Australian funded facilities are being operated. That is why we support this amendment which will ensure that reasonable requests for media access to a detention facility will be granted, and that any refusal must be tabled by the minister. There must be public disclosure and accountability. I have noted in regard to the amendment on media access that Labor has consistently condemned the government's mismanagement of offshore processing.

The government places detainees in living conditions that lead to all forms of abuse. Nearly two years after their arrival, asylum seekers in the Nauru detention facility were still living in tents. Increased sexual abuse and assaults were an inevitable consequence of having to live in that environment. That is why Labor instigated a Senate inquiry into the reports of sexual abuse on the Nauru facility. Labor would establish an independent oversight of the detention facilities to ensure transparency and the protection against abuse. The member for Corio has introduced in the other place a private member's bill on mandatory reporting of offences against children. Therefore, we support the amendment on those grounds as well, which makes it absolutely clear that assaults and abusive conduct are not acceptable in Australian funded facilities. This amendment will mandate the reporting to relevant authorities of any assault, just in case there is any question about those matters—and failure to report such matters would be an offence.

The question of discretion then arises. It strikes me that while we need the proposition that Senator Hanson-Young has moved here, it does require a clearer statement that the minister has a responsibility to show common sense when it comes to the question of these administrative arrangements. There needs to be ministerial discretion and there needs to be accountability. These two things go together—that is why this parliament has such an important role in ensuring transparency in the operation of these facilities. So the amendment I am moving allows ministerial discretion when it comes to the minister being satisfied that refusal to make a determination on one or more of the various subsections is in the best interests of the minor, and that it is in the public interest to do so. The amendment I am moving also allows that, where the minister has been given an adverse security assessment in regard to a member of a family unit, they are still able to be treated in a proper way according to law.