Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Repairing Medical Transfers) Bill 2019. The first thing I say is that the title is so wrong. Nothing is going to be repaired if this bill gets through. What's going to happen is that more people are not going to be able to access the medical services that they need. It's so badly named, and it's something that the government do fairly often. We had the ensuring integrity bill last week. What a joke. They were not ensuring integrity. In fact, if they were, they would be showing some integrity on their side in regard to Mr Angus Taylor.

I want to start by congratulating my colleagues on this side who have already spoken. I think the speeches have been very thoughtful and very well thought out. I want to associate myself with them. What it shows is that on this side of the chamber we understand compassion, care, truthfulness and honesty. Those on the other side seem to think we can't protect our borders and be compassionate at the same time. In fact, the previous speaker, Senator McMahon, just referred to the fact that she sees this as weakening our sovereign borders. Because we want to act humanely? Because we want to give people the medical services that they require and that they need? What a joke! And it's really disappointing that we're spending the last sitting week of the year debating this misleadingly titled bill. We've got stagnant wages, which, of course, Minister Cormann has told us are part of the government's overall plan anyway—that came directly from his mouth—we have high rates of mortgage stress, we have abuses in the aged-care system and we're spending our time debating whether we should take away medical care away from sick people. I think that this government has possibly sunk to a new all-time low.

There are many reasons why people get into politics. My journey began because I wanted to see better pay and conditions for people working in early childhood education. I saw an area of need and I made the decision to work towards making improvements. Others have their own stories to tell—all different, but generally with a common theme. The common theme that runs throughout all of our first speeches is usually about hopes for a better future. I'd ask those on the other side of the chamber to honestly ask themselves: is this really why you entered politics? Was it really to deny health care to vulnerable, unwell people that need care? I don't believe it is, and I would call upon you all to examine your consciences. The Liberal and National party senators in this place are often saying that they're not bound to a particular position, that they're free to vote in accordance with their views. Well, today I call upon some of the government side of the chamber to put this often-spoken cliche into practice and to vote the right way, to vote with us.

Despite the title of this bill, medical transfers do not need to be repaired, because medevac is working as it should. It is the people who are unwell who need to be repaired, not the bill. Let's look at a couple of simple facts. After nine months of medevac's life-saving work—that is, making sure medical treatment is provided to those offshore—the government has not been able to demonstrate why this law must be repealed. We've heard the furphies—there are always the furphies; there are always the fear campaigns about how it's weakening border protection—but there has been no evidence of that in the past nine months. Before medevac, let's all remember, 12 people died in Australia's offshore detention centres. And one really important fact that we need to remember is that medevac works because it ensures doctors—not Minister Dutton—make the medical decisions about offshore patients in their care.

We've had a number of polls that have shown the majority of Australian people support medevac. In February 2019, at the time of its passage, a uComms poll found medevac was supported by 60 per cent of voters, including more than 25 per cent of coalition voters. In September 2019, after voters could assess the actual operation of medevac, support had risen, with 64 per cent of voters in favour, including 61 per cent of coalition voters. In November 2019, in my home state of Tasmania, a Tasmania-only uComms poll found a majority—62.8 per cent of Tasmanians—wanted medevac to stay, compared to just 27 per cent of people who wanted it abolished. In November 2019, so very recently, an Essential poll found that 62 per cent of voters were in favour of medevac, including—grab this, those on the other side!—59 per cent of coalition voters.

I'm not quite sure why those on the other side want to repeal this bill. I should imagine that it's because it's not theirs, because they're pretty poor winners. They're quite arrogant about winning the election. They haven't got a legislative timetable for next year at all. They don't seem to know what they're doing most of the time. They can't come in and give us answers to things. Earlier in the week we were discussing how the ACNC report has been waiting for a response for 18 years—no, months, although it could be 18 years by the time we finally get a response from them—and how they can't come in and give us proper answers. I think it was Senator Gallagher who said that they basically give us the finger. We know what she meant! That's what the arrogance on that side is like.

As I said, poll after poll has shown that a majority of Australian people support medevac. As of November, 200 people have been approved to be transferred, with 172 of the approvals made by Minister Dutton himself. And, as of November, 160 of these people have been transferred. What we really need to remember is that all transfers have been explicitly approved by the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton; the Minister for Immigration, Mr Coleman; or by ministerially appointed doctors. If a person doesn't require medical treatment, the Independent Health Advice Panel, IHAP, denies the transfer. Up until 26 August 2019, IHAP had considered 28 applications; 10 were recommended for transfer and the minister's decision to refuse transfer was upheld in 18 cases. This furphy that they keep throwing up about the minister having no control and that we're going to be inundated by people of bad character, which I'll get to a bit later, is just that: it's a red herring and it's a furphy. It's trying to put fear into the Australian public. Those on that side should be so ashamed of themselves. All people transferred to Australia under medevac must be held in immigration detention unless the minister releases them into the community. These laws are working as they should, and so they shouldn't be repealed.

The bill before us today seeks to do the following things. Firstly, it seeks to repeal the medevac legislation—that is, the amendments made to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Act, passed by the parliament in February 2019 and given royal assent on Friday 1 March 2019. Secondly, the bill seeks to amend the Migration Act to extend existing powers in relation to persons transferred to Australia under the medical transfers provisions. The government argues that the medevac amendments to the Migration Act require amending to clarify the powers of return following the completion of the treatment or purpose for which the person was transferred to Australia.

Refugee advocates and lawyers, along with Labor, have argued that the current powers of return do not need clarification and extend to persons transferred to Australia under the medevac legislation. A number of submitters to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry into this bill argued that government does maintain the power to transfer detainees back to a regional processing country. With this legislation, Minister Dutton is not seeking to amend medevac; instead, he is seeking to revert to a flawed medical transfer system that was failing to provide adequate and timely medical care to refugees and asylum seekers in regional processing countries. If the government had legitimate proposals to improve the operation of medevac, then Minister Dutton should put forward amendments rather than simply seeking to repeal the legislation.

The provisions of the bill before us today are not necessary to maintain or improve the existing border protection system under which asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat and without valid entry documents are detained and processed offshore. Despite claims by those opposite, Minister Dutton currently has all the power he needs to refuse a transfer on security grounds, with no appeal. In fact, Minister Dutton has confirmed that the medevac laws are working, with his refusal to transfer a person of bad character. So he can do it, and he's done it.

It's clear that Minister Dutton and the government are not being entirely honest with the Australian people about the way the medevac laws work. The Minister for Home Affairs has made a multitude of outrageous, untruthful and desperate comments regarding medevac. In June, Minister Dutton said on Sky News:

… people of bad character can come, are able to come and in fact are required to come under Labor's laws that they passed. That's the reality.

He said that there are some people of bad character who have come to our country. But then we saw him stop someone of bad character coming to Australia under the laws, so that is clearly false.

In February, when speaking about medevac, the Prime Minister said:

… someone who is a paedophile, a rapist, who has committed murder, any of these other crimes, can just be moved on the say so of a couple of doctors on Skype.

Well, speak about hype, speak about misleading. Like Minister Dutton's claim, this one is similarly false, and I'm sure that the Prime Minister knows that it's false. Mr Dutton has the power to prevent such people entering on character grounds. In March the Home Affairs minister claimed medical transfers were going to displace Australians from hospitals. He said:

People who need medical services are going to be displaced from those services, because if you bring hundreds and hundreds of people from Nauru and Manus down to our country, they are going to go into the health network, let’s be frank about it.

This claim has been disputed by doctors and hospitals across Australia, and the minister has shown not one skerrick of evidence to prove his claim. The minister also argued that 'two doctors from Nimbin' could force the government to bring people from Manus or Nauru to Australia. None of these claims are true—none. Minister Dutton's claims that 1,000 people would flood Australia through medevac or that people could be transferred without their consent have also been proven to be false. When the medevac bill was passed, Labor argued that it was possible both to maintain rigorous border surveillance and security and fulfil Australia's obligation to provide full and appropriate medical care for people detained in Australian funded facilities, and we have been proven right.

Medevac is necessary and it is working, no matter what those on the other side want to say. Doctors are insisting that medevac is working and that the independent medical panel is working as it should. The IHAP include some of Australia's most highly qualified and experienced medical practitioners, including Commonwealth Medical Officer, Professor Brendan Murphy; the Chief Medical Officer of Home Affairs, Dr Parbodh Gogna; AMA representative and AMA ACT President, Dr Antonio Di Dio; pediatric health expert Associate Professor Susan Moloney; and Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrist representative, Associate Professor Neeraj Singh Gill.

At every step of the way, the government or government appointed doctors control who comes to Australia through medevac. In fact, before medevac became law, the courts were deciding medical transfer on health grounds only, not even taking into consideration security concerns. At a Senate inquiry into this bill—and I will probably run out of time to talk too much about it—the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Ed Santow, said:

The current law enables a medical transfer where two or more treating doctors believe it is necessary. The minister can refuse a transfer on medical, security or community safety grounds. [Independent Health Advice Panel (IHAP)] can review the minister's decision but only on the ground of medical necessity. IHAP cannot challenge the minister's decision if it relates to security or community safety. In other words, as the government retains primary control over medical transfer decisions, the commission considers that the bill is not necessary to achieve the stated aim of ensuring the integrity and efficacy of the regional processing framework and returning decision-making power to government.

The other convenient truth left out of this debate is that, prior to the medevac legislation coming into force, this and previous ministers have transferred well over 1,000 people to Australia for medical treatment. Labor hopes the Australian people can see through the mistruths, the spin and the fear campaign that Minister Dutton is spreading.

Labor supports the current medevac laws because they allow people who are sick to get the medical care they need and ensure the government, or government appointed doctors, control who comes to Australia. These laws should not be repealed by the government. People who are sick should receive appropriate medical attention. It's that simple. It's up to this place to make laws that are fair and effective, not cruel and arbitrary. The government cannot be trusted to deal honestly with this parliament or with the Australian people on this issue, as on others. The government are once again using fear to save their own egos. They will try every tactic to divide. Labor wants Australia to be a fair and humane country, and we believe people should be treated decently. That's why fighting to save medevac is so important.

Before I finish, I will point out that one of the things I've heard in a couple of speeches from the other side is that there is more than enough health care available. Fifteen medical whistleblowers who have worked as medical staff on Nauru or in Papua New Guinea wrote a letter that was published in the Hobart Mercury, my home town, and in The Canberra Times on 28 November 2019. It said:

As former medical and healthcare staff who worked in Australia's offshore detention centres, we support the call from Australia's leading medical authorities to #SaveMedevac.

Every person should have access to necessary and appropriate medical care and, as health professionals and clinicians, we have a duty to uphold this basic human right.

The Medevac Legislation has improved access to appropriate healthcare for refugees and asylum seekers being held offshore. It allows medical professionals to make decisions about health care for seriously ill individuals and ensure that they receive the medical treatment that they need in a clinically appropriate timeframe.

We saw ourselves, in our work offshore, that delays and failure to transfer ill asylum seekers resulted in preventable suffering.

That was from the 15 medical whistleblowers who worked as medical staff on Nauru or Papua New Guinea. They are people who were right there, in the thick of it, and they are saying that they think medevac is appropriate and that we should save medevac. They are not someone in here who probably hasn't got a medical degree. I did pick up on Senator McMahon's little joke about single-species people—Senator McMahon is a veterinarian.

All jokes aside, this is a really serious issue. This is about care and compassion. If your families were over there, I'm pretty sure you would be fighting tooth and nail to make sure they got appropriate medical, mental health—whatever the case may be—services when they needed it. There is nothing we should be doing today except rejecting this legislation. It's an absolute travesty. That people could be so inhumane absolutely rocks me. We can do better than that in Australia. (Time expired)