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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Lundy, in question time today relating to the government's assurances to the Foreign Minister of Nauru.

The Foreign Minister of Nauru said clearly on the record this week that Nauru would not be prepared to be accepting asylum seekers and refugees in their country where the removal was done by force. The Nauruan government has asked the Australian government for assurance that force would not be used. We have just heard in the response from Minister Lundy that the government is more than prepared to use force to remove refugees and to deport them to Nauru once they have already arrived on Christmas Island or indeed anywhere on the Australian mainland.

It is clear that the Australian government have simply thumbed their nose at the request of the Nauru government to not use force. They are more than prepared to see force used and have justified it because the act that this government and the coalition rushed through this parliament only three weeks ago allows for 'reasonable and necessary force' to be used. The question that I had to Minister Lundy was: what constitutes reasonable and necessary force? I think it is an absolutely fair question, particularly when the country that we are sending these people to have said they do not want forced to be used—full stop!

So what is necessary and reasonable force? I question whether there is any force that is reasonable and necessary to remove a child from a detention centre on Christmas Island to a detention centre in Nauru. I question whether there is any force that is reasonable or necessary to remove a child who is a refugee and has fled war, torture and persecution. What type of necessary and reasonable force could there possibly be for a country like Australia, that is meant to abide by basic standards of humanity, when it comes to dealing with the world's most vulnerable people, refugee children? What type of force could possibly be reasonable to use against those children or the pregnant women currently being held in Darwin who have been told by the immigration department that they will be going to Nauru? What necessary and reasonable force will be used against pregnant women who resist boarding the plane, knowing that their fate at the end of that plane journey is going to be indefinite detention?

The government cannot even tell us how long these people are going to be left in this prison camp in Nauru. They cannot tell us how they are going to get there, what force is necessary, what force is reasonable and then how long these people are even going to be there. In fact, the government cannot even answer and will not answer who will be processing the claims of these refugees. Is the Nauru government going to be making the assessments as to who is a refugee and who is not? Or is it the Australian government who is going to be making the assessments? There are absolutely no answers from the government or the representing minister to any of these questions.

It staggers me that here in the parliament of Australia—a modern country; a country where we have signed the refugee convention and we pride ourselves on looking after each other properly; a country where we have basic standards about how we treat those who are vulnerable—in answer to a question as to whether a foreign country has asked for an assurance that we will not use force against refugees, our minister confirms, 'Oh well, we will be, because as long as it is necessary and reasonable it is all okay.' I do not believe any force used against people, including women and children, who have fled war, can ever be justified as reasonable and necessary.

Question agreed to.