Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018, and, in doing so, also support the comments made by my colleagues who spoke before, Senator Siewert and Senator McKim. The Greens have some considerable concerns in relation to a number of the amendments that are designed to expand the application of the 'visa bar' under the Migration Act, and we've requested information from the minister in relation to this. In fact, we're hoping that we can have some honesty and transparency from the government in relation to this so that we can know with full confidence exactly what the consequences will be if and when this legislation passes. We know that, when the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights responded to this piece of legislation, they had concerns as well.

Firstly, we know that the bill seeks to clarify that, if a person is unsuccessfully removed from Australia under section 198, they do not require a visa to return. Secondly, the bill provides that, where a person leaves the migration zone but returns as the result of an unsuccessful section 198 removal, they will remain subject to a statutory bar against applying for further visas. Thirdly, our understanding of the bill is that it enables the department to deliver documents to a person through their online ImmiAccount and charge them for the so-called privilege. We really would like some of the implications of this bill to be clarified by the government before it passes into law. One of the reasons why clarification is important is that, when we're dealing with issues of immigration, when we're dealing with issues of whether a person is to be removed from Australia or not, it needs to be absolutely crystal clear what those conditions are and what those individuals have a right to. It does seem a little bit strange that we'd charge people for the privilege of the government wanting to remove them.

Section 42 of the Migration Act provides that a non-citizen must not travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect. A non-citizen who is in a migration zone without a valid visa will be deemed as an unlawful non-citizen. The act requires the removal from the migration zone of any non-citizen who does not hold a visa in effect and is unable to resolve their visa status. This bill, as we know, requires the removal to occur as soon as reasonably practicable. We need to be really clear about the conditions by which people can be removed—what the abilities are to understand personal and special circumstances. We don't just want to be giving more powers to the government to remove people without proper recourse. There are a variety of reasons why some people might not have the right visa or why a perceived visa breach has occurred. Also, there are some people who simply don't abide by the rules, and they, of course, should be dealt with properly. But you can't make everything more difficult for everyone simply because the government wants to look tough at the border for the sake of it. We need to make sure there is a proper process and understanding of how these new rules would be applied.

We have real concerns about the amendments relating to further visa applications. Under section 48 of the Migration Act a person is barred from applying for most visas if they are in the migration zone and do not hold a substantive visa—that is, if they're on a bridging visa. We know there are a variety of reasons that individuals are put on bridging visas, and bridging visas are, of course, a legitimate process for ensuring that we can resolve immigration matters and visa complications. They're a legitimate part of ensuring that we can resolve these issues without the expense and heartache of having to remove people unnecessarily. The bill amends sections 48 and 48A in line with its amendments to section 42, so when a person returns to Australia they'll be taken to have been continuously in the migration zone. This means that if prior to the person's removal they would have been barred from making a visa application under section 48, this will continue to be the case when they return to Australia.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have raised concerns about this measure, which it noted will expand the circumstances in which the statutory visa bar applies.

We can't get into a situation where people aren't able to apply for the appropriate visa simply because the letter of the law hasn't taken into consideration all of the complexities that go along with people's lives—that just because somebody is on a bridging visa they are therefore barred from applying for another substantive visa along the way. We can't have people living in limbo or constantly in fear of removal.

The committee has suggested that the proposed amendments are not 'compatible with the right to liberty and right to an effective remedy, as well as with the obligation to consider the best interests of the child'. We need to understand that when we are making decisions about rules and procedures for how people's visas are granted or removed there is always an element of understanding that human life is complicated. You can't always have a black-and-wide process that everybody will be able to follow to the tee. Things happen. People end up in situations where relatives are sick or an accident happens or a baby is born or there is simply the complication of getting from one side of a country to another to the appropriate immigration office or consulate. There are a variety of reasons why we need to have some discretion to ensure that people aren't left without a choice because new rules barring certain visas have been put in place.

The committee also suggested:

… there is a risk that a person barred from applying for a new protection visa (for example) 'could be subject to immigration detention for an extended period given that an attempt to deport the person has already failed', or could be deported even if owed protection obligations.

If we haven't been able to deport somebody, because we owe them protection, the default position shouldn't be that they get locked up and punished in immigration detention. That is just ridiculous. We need to make sure that people who are owed protection have every opportunity to apply for the appropriate type of visa that would ensure Australia's obligations are invoked. Making it difficult, and near impossible, for them to apply for the appropriate visa, therefore saying they are unlawful and therefore can be removed, is setting people up to fail. The result will be that innocent people are kept in immigration detention indefinitely. We know all of the problems with immigration detention, not the least being that there is no judicial review. There is no ability for anyone to have their detention effectively challenged, looked at by an independent prosecutor or judge, and a decision made that those people perhaps should be allowed to live outside detention while their visa issues are resolved.

Of course, it's very expensive to keep people locked up in immigration detention simply because the bureaucracy made it too hard for everyone to understand what the situation was in order to ascertain what the appropriate visa application should have been. We know that a number of people kept in immigration detention here on the Australian mainland—we're not talking about people necessarily who arrived by boat in the past; we're talking also about people who have flown into this country on very legitimate visas—are people for whom, for whatever reason, it is now unsafe to return home. Those people deserve the right to have a proper process, a valid process, to apply for proper protection and to invoke Australia's obligations for protection. Punishing them by putting them in immigration detention, hoping that they would drop their plea for help, is just mean spirited and unnecessary.

There are many other issues in relation to this bill that the Greens have concerns about. It would be no surprise to anybody that when this government decides to 'get tough' at the border, whatever that means—we understand there are plenty of people here in Australia who have overstayed their visas. We don't hear the Prime Minister talking about those people. We constantly hear, when it comes to this debate, the beat-up and obsession with those who are the most vulnerable. They are individuals and their families who have fled war, torture and persecution, who are stateless and perhaps have no other option than to wait it out in Australia's awful, harsh immigration detention centres, hoping that one day there will be a change of heart or mind from this government.

It's no surprise that the Greens will not be supporting this legislation. While we're standing here today and debating this particular bill there are still children detained on Nauru, out of sight and out of mind. They're the same children who, when I was there five years ago, pleaded with me not to leave them living in limbo. Those children and their families deserve to have their suffering ended. They deserve to have Australia welcome them and give them an opportunity to rebuild their lives, and to get on with being productive members of our community. Those children have suffered enough under the hands of this hideous and cruel government.

There are other refugees on Nauru, of course, aside from children. Many of them are fathers whose children are here in Australia because they became sick. They became so sick and tortured by their experiences, of being locked up on that island prison, that they had to be sent back to Australia on the advice of doctors who said they simply could not spend one extra day on Nauru. These children are here in Australia but a number of fathers are left, separated from their families, on Nauru. It is just unnecessary brutality to see families split up in this manner. It's designed to make the suffering that much worse and even more damaging. It's designed to break the spirits of these very resilient and brave people who did what they needed to do to get their families out of some pretty hideous situations overseas, whether that be war in Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan or on the Afghan-Pakistan border. They could be Hazara families who lived through generations of persecution or young Tamil families who are Catholic and, as a result of being trained professionals in their homeland, were targeted by the current regime. These are individuals who deserve to have their suffering ended.

Of course, we cannot forget the men who are left on Manus Island. I had a message from a refugee on Manus Island, only last night, informing me that there had been two attempted suicides on the island yesterday. That is what we have done to these people. We have tortured them and been unnecessarily cruel and brutal, pushing them to a point of self-destruction, and their only way out is to end their own lives. These are individuals who fled war, torture and persecution. They came to Australia for our help, for our care and for our compassion, and we treated them appallingly, using them as political pawns. This government, day after day, is playing politics with the lives of these individuals. Day after day they are using these individuals as examples of how tough, apparently, this government is. I don't think it's very tough to beat up on some of the world's most vulnerable people. I don't think it's very tough to keep helpless, vulnerable refugees and children locked up on island prisons and used as an example to weaponise political strategy back here at home. The lives of these children have been destroyed because of the toxic politics of this government and the toxic politics and the internal machinations of the coalition.

Of course Scott Morrison may have shored up his leadership in the Liberal Party last night—change the rules once you're in, and lock it in. What does that say about how safe the Prime Minister must be feeling? He thought there was a reason to have an emergency meeting for his leadership, but he won't have an emergency meeting to get sick, suffering children off Nauru. That shows you everything you need to know about the priorities of this government and the priorities of this Prime Minister. He's more worried about his own job than he is about the vulnerable people that he sent to these island prisons in Manus and on Nauru. As we are debating this piece of legislation, when we're weighing up whether to give this government more power to just simply deny people visas or block them from being able to apply for the appropriate visa, we cannot forget that this is all in the context of the political scaremongering and manipulation of the lives of very real people—children and their families—who are left stranded on Nauru and on Manus Island.

To the men on Manus Island, who are suffering today as a result of two members of their group and their community who attempted suicide yesterday, I say please don't give up hope. There are plenty of decent Australians who know that what this government is doing is wrong. There are many decent Australians who want this policy to change. We have not given up. We will continue to fight for you. We will continue to fight for decency. We will continue to make sure that the stain that has been smeared on Australia's national identity will, at one point, be scrubbed, because we are a country of a fair go. We are a country that understands and celebrates diversity, opportunity and respect. The moment we can get rid of this government, we might be able to get on with putting a bit more decency and a bit more compassion back on the table. Please don't give up. Understand that there are people in this place, on all sides of politics, who know that this current regime is toxic. It's brutal and it's time it ended.