Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a good opportunity now to continue my remarks, which I started last night, on the Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015. This bill is part of the government's broader agenda to strengthen our border security. That was a key component of the policies that the government took to the last election, and it has been a great success since then. It has been such a great success that the Labor Party have now adopted the policies of the coalition. They have finally seen the light. They took many years to see the light, but they finally have seen that we need to have strong borders to save lives and create a secure nation for the people who live here.

This bill is only a small change which will help provide greater power and more options for the employees who put their own safety at risk in our detention centres. Our detention centres are now, of course, peopled with fewer people, thanks to the government's border protection policies. There are fewer people arriving here irregularly. There are fewer people now in detention centres. There are still some, though, particularly given the overhang that was left to the government by the previous government a couple of years ago now. The make-up of people in our detention centres is changing because there are fewer people coming from overseas, and it is right and proper that we should seek to make sure that the powers that are available to our offices in those detention facilities are up to date.

The government is committed to providing a safe and secure immigration detention network. The demography of our facilities, as I said, has changed. There is an increasing proportion of people of high risk in detention facilities. They include people who have had their visa cancelled as a result of failing character tests, often due to convictions for drug or other serious criminal offences. There are people who are a high security risk, such as members of gangs. There are some who are subject to adverse security assessments, and some have become unlawful noncitizens as a result of breaching visa conditions. It is an unfortunate consequence that there are some people, of course, in any population, be they in our local population or in detention facilities, who are not necessarily of a mind to do the right thing all the time.

I followed last night a contribution by Senator Lines, from the Labor Party. Even she herself admitted that there would be a percentage of people in detention facilities who are a high risk. I think she put the number at around 120. I do not have precise figures, but Senator Lines was arguing that 120 is not many and that we should not need these extra powers to deal with only 120 people. Actually, I believe that, even if there were one, two, five or 10 people who pose a high risk to the Australians who have to run these facilities, we should make sure that we give them the appropriate powers to make sure that they can maintain their own health and safety in having to deal with these high-risk detainees. Such detainees do, of course, create behavioural challenges, particularly those who are wont to commit crimes or have committed crimes in the past. They can potentially jeopardise the safety, security and peace of our immigration detention facilities and the safety of all persons within those facilities.

In fact, public order disturbances have arisen at a number of immigration detention facilities in recent years. The changes that the government is proposing here follow a review that was conducted of two of those incidents, one at Christmas Island and the other at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, both in 2011. The review was prepared on behalf of the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, and presented to him in 2011. That report made a number of recommendations, one of which was to more clearly articulate the responsibility between the department of immigration, the detention services providers, such as Serco and private contractors who run these facilities, and any attending police services. Often, when a disturbance does occur, police have to be called in. Those police are often under the jurisdiction of a different government, a state or territory government. There is obviously a need to coordinate all aspects of an emergency response in those situations.

These changes respond to that recommendation by clarifying that the authorised officers in Commonwealth detention facilities, who are often employed by private contractors, have the ability to use reasonable force to maintain safety, to protect their own health and to protect the health of the inmates themselves. There is increasingly a need to provide this higher security, and the Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015 is necessary to provide these officers with the resources needed to manage the safety, security and peace of our facilities.

The bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to allow an authorised officer to:

… use such reasonable force against any person or thing, as the authorised officer reasonably believes is necessary, to:

(a) protect the life, health or safety of any person (including the authorised officer) in an immigration detention facility; or

(b) maintain the good order, peace or security of an immigration detention facility.

Without limiting the general power to use reasonable force, the bill in particular provides:

… an authorised officer may use such reasonable force as the authorised officer reasonably believes is necessary—

and the bill lists a number of things that the authorised officer can do in that instance, including:

… protect a person … from harm or a threat of harm …

… protect a detainee … from self-harm or a threat of self-harm …

… prevent the escape of a detainee …

… prevent a person from damaging, destroying or interfering with property in an immigration detention facility …

… move a detainee within an immigration detention facility; or

… prevent action in an immigration detention facility by any person that:

(i) endangers the life, health or safety of any person … or

(ii) disturbs the good order, peace or security of the facility.

The bill uses the legal concept of 'reasonable force' to limit the actions that can be taken by an authorised officer. There are particular provisions in this bill which limit that power to ones that are reasonable. That is outlined as being that the authorised officer must make sure that, in using reasonable force, only enough force is used to protect the life, safety or health of other persons. Reasonable force itself, as I explained briefly last night, is not a new concept that government is inserting into this bill. It is a concept that is known in our common law, and indeed authorised officers today would have the general right to use reasonable force to protect their own safety and the safety of others; however, there is not a definitive definition in our common law of what that means. And that means that there is quite a bit of uncertainty for authorised officers in what they can and cannot do to protect themselves and others.

All this bill does is simply provide a codified and definitive outline of what reasonable force can reasonably be expected to be for authorised officers. I believe it is only fair and proper that we provide our officers, who are putting themselves on duty for us, with that certainty—with an environment that lets them do their job with sufficient understanding of what they can do, without the uncertainty of being subject to legal claims subsequent to an event that may cause them difficulty in managing a particular incident.

This bill reflects the rights and privileges that are provided to other offices in state and territory environments. Obviously police forces have such rights and privileges, but even more reflective of this bill is that often wardens and other officers of state or territory prison facilities would have similar rights and privileges under state and territory acts. And often, in modern times, those officers are also employed by private contractors in a state or territory environment. This bill simply reflects those state and territory provisions into a Commonwealth legal environment and into detention facilities that the Commonwealth government is responsible for. It is a change that will help provide for greater security and order in our detention facilities, and hopefully it contains provisions that will not need to be used very much. They certainly will not need to be used much if we continue to be able to protect our borders to make sure that people are not arriving here in an illegal or irregular fashion. This government will certainly maintain its vigilance in keeping people out of this country, and I hope any future government follows the lead of this government in maintaining that security and continuing to provide a strong border protection framework for Australia.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015. Protecting our borders and stopping the despicable people-smuggling trade was a key pledge of the coalition government in order to keep Australia safe and secure. We on this side of the chamber are very proud to support strong border security measures. As I said earlier this week, the highest priority of any government is security of the country, and the bill adds to these measures. But before going into the details it is worth highlighting the contrast between the coalition on this side and Labor and the Greens on the other side.

Let us remember—and we should never forget—that it was Labor and the Greens, under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, that weakened Australia's borders. Under four immigration ministers and two prime ministers Labor had 11 failed immigration policies, which resulted in almost 850 boats over six years in government, more than 50,000 people arriving illegally by boat, more than 1,100 people dying at sea and almost 2,000 children in detention at its peak. The Labor-Green government had an $11.6 billion budget blow-out on their failed immigration policies, and this required over $2 billion more for the coalition to urgently fix Labor's mess in relation to their failed policies on securing Australia's borders. Under Operation Sovereign Borders and with the exceptional work of Minister Morrison and Minister Dutton, only one boat has arrived in 2014 and 2015 to date.

Of course, following Labor's recent national conference the Leader of the Opposition is trying to convince the Australian people that he is a convert to, a true believer in, strong border protection policies and turning back the boats. I do not know how the Australian people can actually believe Labor, because the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said the same thing in 2007 and then presided over a catastrophic public policy and national security failure. Other senior colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition—the deputy leader, the leader of Labor in the Senate and Anthony Albanese—have all voted against boat turn-backs.

The only way to ensure the security of Australia's borders is with the coalition and Operation Sovereign Borders. Operation Sovereign Borders has been very successful in reducing the population in immigration detention. There was about 95 per cent of the total immigration detention population in 2013, and this has been reduced to 53 per cent in June 2015. The number of people in detention has reduced from over 12,000 in July 2013 to around 2,000 in June 2015. But this success has resulted in a change in the character of detainees in immigration detention facilities. Onshore immigration detention facilities do not only hold people waiting for processing. Rather, the onshore immigration detention networks hold an increasing number of detainees who present behavioural challenges, including people subject to adverse security assessments, people who have or are alleged to have committed serious criminal offences and others deemed to be of a high security risk, such as members of outlaw motorcycle gangs. As such, the Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015 amends the Migration Act 1958 to continue the government's commitment to strong border protection and the establishment of a safe and effective system of immigration detention.

The government has a responsibility to detainees and other people in our immigration detention facilities to ensure that they are free from harm. The government is also responsible for ensuring that these facilities themselves are in good order and are peaceful and secure. In amending the Migration Act the government is providing those working in our detention facilities with the tools they need to protect the life, health and safety of any person and to maintain the good order, peace and security of an immigration facility.

The amendments reflect the recommendations from an independent review of incidents at the Christmas Island and Villawood immigration detention centres in 2011. The review recommended the department more clearly articulate the responsibility for public order management between the department, the detention service provider and any attending police services.

The bill will provide for an authorised officer to use such reasonable force against any person or thing as the authorised officer reasonably believes is necessary to    protect the life, health or safety of any person, including the authorised officer, in an immigration detention facility; or maintain the good order, peace or security of an immigration detention facility.

Without these amendments, which clarify the use of force and the responsibility for the management of public order in immigration detention facilities, the department's ability to uphold its responsibility to detainees and other persons in immigration detention facilities to ensure that they are free from harm will be limited.

The use of reasonable force is not a new concept to the Migration Act 1958. Various provisions in the Migration Act authorise the use of reasonable force in specific circumstances. For example, it may be necessary in certain circumstances to use reasonable force to carry out identification tests. There are currently, however, no provisions in the Migration Act 1958 that authorise the use of reasonable force as proposed in this amendment.

Currently, employees working in detention facilities rely on common law powers for the use of force which are available to ordinary citizens. In effect, this means that a court will determine whether a private citizen—in this case, an employee of the immigration detention services provider—lawfully used force by looking at what was objectively reasonable in the circumstances. This does not provide a clear basis for the use of force and impacts on the safety of those working in detention facilities and detainees. This bill clarifies the use of reasonable force and provides a clear legislative framework for employees to operate in.

These amendments are of particular importance in light of the changing profile of the detention population, including rising numbers of detainees with criminal convictions.. Onshore immigration detention facilities do not only hold people awaiting processing; rather the onshore immigration detention network holds an increasing number of detainees who present behavioural challenges, including people subject to adverse security assessments; people who have or are alleged to have committed serious criminal offences; and others deemed to be of a high security risk, such as members of outlaw motorcycle gangs.

The bill in particular provides that an authorised officer may use such reasonable force as the authorised officer reasonably believes is necessary to    protect a person, including the authorised officer in an immigration detention facility, from harm or a threat of harm;    protect a detainee in an immigration detention facility from self-harm or a threat of self-harm; prevent the escape of a detainee from an immigration detention facility; prevent a person from damaging, destroying or interfering with property in an immigration detention facility; move a detainee within an immigration detention facility; or    prevent action in an immigration detention facility by any person that endangers the life, health or safety of any person, including the authorised officer, in the immigration detention facility, or disturbs the good order, peace or security of the facility.

The proposed amendments will provide authorised officers with the clear authority to respond to detainees exhibiting behavioural conduct issues within immigration detention facilities. All authorised officers will be required to undergo appropriate training and maintain qualifications. Similar legislation already exists in the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

One of the concerns that has been raised is: what is being done to address the potential for abuse of these powers? The proposed amendments will insert provisions that specifically limit the exercise of the power to use reasonable force. The amendments also provide for a statutory complaints mechanism that will allow a person to direct a complaint to the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection about the exercise of reasonable force.

Robust policies and procedures and comprehensive training will be essential components of the governance of the power to use reasonable force. The policies, procedures, guidelines and reporting requirements guiding the use of force in immigration detention facilities will be reviewed in consultation with the Australian Federal Police. When using reasonable force as a matter of policy, an officer must take all reasonable precautions appropriate to the circumstances of a vulnerable detainee. The bill allows for complaints that are clearly of a serious nature to be referred to the Ombudsman or the relevant police service for independent investigation.

The proposed amendments will allow sufficient time to ensure that the appropriate training and governance arrangements are in place. Governance arrangements around the management of serious incidents are being reviewed and strengthened in consultation with the Australian Federal Police.

There will be a strong interaction between the proposed amendments and the Australian Border Force Act 2015.    The Australian Border Force Act 2015 and this bill are compatible with little overlap. The consequential bill to the Australian Border Force Act would amend the definition of 'authorised officer' to mean an officer authorised by the minister, secretary or Australian Border Force Commissioner.

The training and qualification requirements specified for authorised officers under this bill can be managed in conjunction with the Australian Border Force Commissioner's powers to determine what is required for particular Australian Border Force roles.

I think it is very important at this point in time to look at the views of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, chaired by my Queensland colleague Senator Ian Macdonald, who tabled the report on this bill on 5 June 2015. The committee recommended that the bill be passed, subject to clarifications relating to: the operation of provisions when detainees are in transit between facilities and other places; the use of force being proportionate and an absolute last resort, following negotiation and de-escalation techniques; and parliamentary oversight of prescribed training and qualification requirements of detention centre personnel. The committee's report says at paragraph 3.1:

The Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015 has been drafted in response to real and pressing issues facing service providers in Australia's immigration detention facilities. The need for persons working in detention centres to have greater clarity about their powers to manage disturbances and maintain good order and safety has been noted since at least 2011. The more recent change in the demographic profile of the detainee population, with increasing risk of disturbances and violent incidents, makes the case for this legislation now a matter of some urgency.

It goes on to say, 'The committee is grateful for the large number of submissions that it received to the inquiry, many of them thoughtful and detailed. It has considered the various concerns raised, most of which are discussed in another chapter of the report.' Paragraph 3.3 of the report states:

The committee notes the government's mandate to deliver border protection policy settings that reflect the best interests of the Australian people, and that the good order and operational efficiency of detention facilities is manifestly essential to this goal. As the department reiterated during the inquiry, '[w]hat we are trying to achieve is the maintenance of standards of safety and security within detention centres that people are entitled to and enjoy within the broader community'.

The committee went on to say that it:

does not regard it as sufficient to leave service provider staff in detention facilities to manage disturbances and violence without any protection beyond the limited defensive powers provided under the common law. The bill establishes a clear authority, drawing upon comparative legislation and tailored to the particular circumstances of immigration detention, for service providers in detention facilities to exercise the powers necessary to protect themselves and others, and to maintain an environment of security and safety for all who reside and work there.

The committee went on to say that it believes that this legislation is necessary and appropriate, and should proceed.

In conclusion, the Australian government is committed to providing safe and secure immigration detention facilities. The demography of immigration detention facilities has changed. Immigration detention facilities now include increasing numbers of high-risk detainees including persons who have had their visas cancelled as a result of failing the character test, often due to convictions for drug and other serious criminal offences; persons who are a high security risk, such as members of outlaw motorcycle gangs; persons who are subject to adverse security assessments; and those persons who have become unlawful noncitizens as a result of breaching certain visa conditions. The presence of high-risk detainees with behavioural challenges, such as members of outlaw motorcycle gangs, jeopardise the safety, security and peace of our immigration detention facilities and the safety of all persons within those facilities. In fact, public order disturbances have arisen in a number of immigration detention facilities in recent years. This means that there is a need to provide higher security and more intensive management of these detainees. The Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill is necessary to provide authorised officers with the resources to continue to manage the safety, security and peace of our immigration detention facilities.

This bill amends the Migration Act to allow an authorised person to use such reasonable force against any person or thing as the authorised officer reasonably believes is necessary to, specifically, protect the life, health or safety of any person, including the authorised officer, in an immigration detention facility, or maintain the good order, peace or security of an immigration detention facility. Without limiting the general power to use reasonable force, the bill provides that an authorised officer may use such reasonable force as the authorised officer reasonably believes is necessary to: protect a person, including that authorised officer, in an immigration detention facility from harm or threat of harm; protect a detainee in an immigration detention facility from self-harm or a threat of self-harm; prevent the escape of a detainee from an immigration detention facility; prevent a person from damaging, destroying or interfering with property in an immigration detention facility; move a detainee within an immigration detention facility; or prevent action in an immigration detention facility by any person that does endanger the life, health or safety of persons in that facility or disturbs the good order, peace or security of the facility.

The bill limits the use of reasonable force to incidents that occur in relation to an immigration detention facility. The legislation strikes an appropriate balance between maintaining the good order of a facility and maintaining the safety of the people within it and the need to ensure that the use of force is reasonable, proportionate and appropriate. The coalition is maintaining strong border security measures and ensuring that all people in detention centres are safe from harm. The coalition will continue the proven and effective use of immigration detention as a tool to manage compliance with Australia's migration law and the removal of those who have no right to remain in Australia. The main objective of any government is the security of the people of the country, and this is what the coalition government is attempting to do. (Time expired)

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015. This bill, essentially, gives unchecked power to detention centre officers to use force against asylum seekers, including children, in any circumstance that they feel is necessary. It is a bill that creates a legal framework for the use of force in immigration detention centres by authorised officers who are designated immigration detention centre service provider employees without any safeguards. Effectively, it means that private security officers can use force against people, including kids, that is, according to Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, greater than the force allowed in analogous state and territory prison legislation. Just reflect on that for a moment.

Here we have a group of people in immigration detention whose crime is that they were born in a country where they were tortured, persecuted and they made the decision to leave those circumstances. That is their crime: to be born in a place where they are unsafe, where some of them are raped, tortured, persecuted on the basis of their race or religion. Yet, here we are granting security guards more power than what we offer those people working in prisons right across the country. Even worse is that this is only subject to what is a subjective test regarding whether use of force was lawful—in other words, it is up to someone's opinion as to whether they think the action was justified. There is almost total immunity from legal action. The only right of appeal is through the High Court and there is no right to independent review of the use of force—no independent review.

It is at the minister's discretion to determine the training and qualification requirements. I understand that the minister has indicated that certificate II is an appropriate level of training for these detention centre officers. We would not allow someone to work as a nightclub bouncer in Queensland under those qualifications, yet we think it is okay to give them the capacity to use force that they determine is appropriate, according to the circumstances in which they feel that that force is necessary—when they are looking after children, pregnant women and older people. We would not allow people to work in those circumstances if they were bouncers in a nightclub in Queensland.

It enables the use of force to 'protect a person's life, health or safety, or maintain the good order, peace and security of the facility'. What does that mean? What is reasonable force? Reasonable force is okay in casual conversation, but what does it mean when we enshrine it in law? What is good order? What is the legal definition of 'good order'?

As Amnesty International highlight in their submission, it could mean the exercise of force against people who are raising their voices—maintaining good order—simply on the grounds that they are creating a disturbance within the facility. That is what this bill does. We are enshrining that ambiguity in law and allowing detention centre guards with minimal training, skills and experience to determine what they think the appropriate use of force should be. It is hard not to believe that this is just another part of the government's push to endlessly punish and intimidate asylum seekers. If the government were serious about addressing good order, maintaining peace within our detention centre facilities, it would do something about the causes of what is going on within those facilities.

What about the living conditions in which people are housed; the hellhole that are many of these detention camps; the arbitrary, indefinite and lengthy detention to which people are subjected? Depriving people of all hope through indefinite and arbitrary detention is a recipe for disturbance. What about giving people access to medical care, to appropriate education for their kids? If we want to address the issue of good order, if we want to ensure that our detention centre facilities are somewhere where we do not see the disturbances that this government is keen to highlight, how about we do something about those basic human living conditions? Instead of doing that, this government does what it always does, it takes the easy option. It tries to stoke fear and division within the community. It seeks to sanction a culture of excessive force within our detention centre network. And it gives and grants even more power to people who have already demonstrated that they are unable to behave responsibly with the power that they have, and it grants them more punitive power over a group of vulnerable people.

Let's look at what has happened within the existing framework, within the powers that detention centre guards already have. Let's look at the recent evidence of abuse in our detention centres. This is particularly alarming having this discussion now when you consider the numerous incidents of abuse and excessive force already on the record. Let's reflect on the murder of Iranian asylum seeker Reza Barati and the 70 other people who were injured during the 2014 protests on Manus Island. We have got two men charged for that, one free on bail, and another group of men who have not been found.

We have got the 7:30 Report footage from inside the Nauru detention centre on July 2013 where guards openly talk about shooting asylum seekers. We have got people expressing on the record a view that asylum seekers should be shot, and we are giving those people more power to determine what use of force is appropriate. What about the claims by Wilson Security guards that asylum seekers at the Nauru detention centre were water boarded? I will say that again—we have people in our care who have been water boarded by government-contracted employees. We heard allegations around another form of torture called zipping. This is a process where you use cable ties to secure an asylum seeker to a metal bed with metal bars at the base. The bed is thrown into the air and injury is caused to the asylum seeker as the bed strikes the floor.

Outlined in the Moss report in great detail we have got evidence of physical and sexual abuse by guards against women and children. Fairfax Media obtained evidence that there were 33 cases of alleged sexual assault involving children in Australian detention centres and on Christmas Island between January 2013 and March 2014. That does not include Nauru or Manus Island. Just think about that—33 cases of alleged sexual assault involving children at the same time that a royal commission is underway in this country looking into the issue of child sexual abuse. We have got the sexual abuse of women and children on Nauru, including underage asylum seekers being forced to perform sexual acts in front of guards. We had the spectre of women being told that they needed to strip naked in front of guards if they wanted to have a shower for more than two minutes. We have got one woman who was told that she would be raped if she was resettled at Nauru.

We have got video footage of force used against children during a transfer from one compound to another on Christmas Island. We have got investigations into the use of excessive force by guards at the Maribyrnong detention centre—with many of the officers themselves reporting repeated assaults on asylum seekers. Let us just think about that. There is already a culture of abuse, of torture and of assault within these detention camps. What is the response from this government? 'Let's grant those same people more power. Let's let them use their discretion to decide when they think it's appropriate to respond to what they describe as a disturbance and to ensure that good order is maintained.' The litany of abuse that is currently going on in our detention centres needs to be stopped, and the way to stop it is not by giving those same people more power to continue with their abuse.

It is a response that is necessary once you understand what is going on currently within our detention centre network. It is a policy from this government that can only be maintained if we maintain the culture of secrecy around our detention centre network. That secrecy is necessary for this policy to survive, because there are many good Australians who would be horrified if they saw with their own eyes what is happening right now. The response from government has to be, 'Shut it down and keep this out of the gaze of the Australian community, because once they identify with these people as human beings whose only crime is to be born in a country where they are persecuted, they would not tolerate it.' Once you understand that if the Australian people were to identify with those children, with those families, they would not tolerate it, the response has to be, 'Shut it down and make sure the Australian community do not know what is going on in our detention centre network.'

Of course, the government continues this culture of secrecy. It refuses to be accountable. What began with the immigration minister refusing to answer reporters' questions about asylum seekers, under the guise of it being an operational matter, has now become a full-scale media blackout. This is the sort of response we would expect from a corrupt dictatorship. It is not the sort of response that we should expect from an Australian parliament. We have journalists who cannot access detention centres. We have got a department that is under no obligation to provide reasons for refusing access to detention centres. Again, it is all necessary because this policy only survives because people do not know what is happening.

We have got people working in detention centres who are forbidden under the threat of jail time from revealing information to anyone about anything they come across while doing their jobs. We have criminalised whistleblowers, but not just whistleblowers—doctors and teachers who have an ethical duty to report physical and mental harm that is occurring as a result of detention. Again, let us just reflect on that. We are saying to somebody, a medical professional—somebody who has dedicated their life to providing care for others—that where you witness torture, where you witness abuse and where you witness sexual assault you must stay silent. Our parliament is asking our healthcare workers, our teachers, our nurses and our social workers to stay silent in the face of evil. That is what this parliament will do if it supports this legislation.

Then of course in order to continue to maintain the cloak of secrecy what do we have? We have a coordinated surveillance effort which targets a member of the Australian parliament—organised spying over several days by a team of government-employed contractors—being spied upon not just while driving and while visiting detention centre networks but also inside her hotel room. Normally a scandal like this would see heads roll. Normally, where a member of the Australian parliament is spied upon for doing nothing other than her job, it would be cause for a minister to resign their position—but not on this; not in this area of refugee policy. Why is that? It is because we have a government intent on pursuing these barbaric policies and we have an opposition too cowardly to stand up to them. That is why this is allowed to continue.

This is a bill that continues that culture of abuse and assault on innocent and vulnerable people. This bill purports to provide for the safety of those in immigration detention, but the biggest risk to detainees is not order within a detention facility; it is this government itself and the companies, employed by this government, that are supposed to have a duty of care. That is the biggest threat to people within our detention centre network. This bill is another step on the path that we have embarked on to jettison our international obligations under human rights acts and shows further contempt for the principles of the refugee convention. People are coming here to seek our protection and assistance, and our response is to condone torture, abuse and sexual assault.

This is a bill that further enables conditions that put the safety and lives of asylum seekers at risk. It is a bill that does not deserve the support of this parliament, and I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015. Our government is committed to ensuring that Australia has a strong and humane border protection policy. Under the coalition, the number of boat arrivals in this country has decreased drastically. This has saved the lives of asylum seekers who would have otherwise travelled in leaky vessels and put themselves at risk.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has a duty to ensure that Australia's immigration detention centres are safe and secure. This is a part of our legal obligations under domestic and international law. The Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015 ensures that personnel who are working in detention facilities have the capacity to provide a safe and secure environment for detainees, for asylum seekers and for the staff who work within those facilities. The bill will provide an authorising officer the power to use reasonable force against any person or thing in order to protect the health—protect the health, Senator Di Natale—and safety of any person in an immigration detention facility. The bill will also provide an authorising officer the power to use such reasonable force against any person or thing in order to maintain the good order, peace and security of an immigration facility. Such powers are necessary in order to ensure that our detention facilities do not become ghettos of violent of crime, where the most vulnerable—for example, women and children—are targeted.

Currently detention centre employees do not have the powers necessary for them to prevent acts of violent crime and civil disturbance in our immigration detention centres. Detention centre employees have had to rely on common law powers for the use of force—powers which are no greater than those provided to ordinary private citizens. This has resulted in uncertainty and fails to provide a clear basis for when reasonable force can be applied. This has had a negative impact on the safety of vulnerable detainees—in particular, women and children. The Moss review, which was conducted in October last year, found that at least three females—one of whom was a minor—had been sexually assaulted whilst in detention. Such crimes can be prevented in the future if detention centre staff are given clear guidelines regarding the instances when they can use reasonable force in order to protect detainees.

The current laws regarding the use of force are insufficient in dealing with widespread instances of civil disturbance in our detention centres. This was made abundantly clear in Villawood Detention Centre riots when detainees commenced rioting and set fire to detention centre facilities, causing up to $9 million worth of damage to infrastructure. Fire-fighter and emergency services personnel who assisted at the scene were pelted with roof tiles and stones. The risk that this posed to the safety of the detention centre staff, emergency services personnel and detainees is unacceptable and not consistent with the government's aim to provide a safe and secure environment for detention centre detainees and, indeed, the staff who work within the facilities. Such an event could have been prevented had the detention centre staff been given a clear set of guidelines, backed by legislation, regarding the use of reasonable force to prevent harm to themselves and other detainees.

Greens Senator Hanson-Young has frequently made comments regarding incidents of self-harm by detainees whilst in detention. She claims that the solution to the problem is to further strip detention centre staff of their ability to intervene by using reasonable force to prevent harm to detainees to whom they have a duty of care. This is a short-sighted and illogical approach to protecting detainees. Just as teachers and nurses have a duty of care to intervene to prevent harm to their patients and their students, detention centre staff also have this duty of care. In order for them to carry out this duty of care, they need to have a clear set of guidelines, regardless of incidents, in which they can use force to prevent harm to detainees and themselves.

The current laws are insufficient to provide a solid basis for when force should be used. Only guidelines set out by legislation will be sufficient to ensure that detention centre staff are able to protect themselves, their co-workers and others. It would be reckless for the Senate not to grant such common-sense measures for detention staff, especially if it is necessary to protect the health and safety of detainees and ensure the safety and security of our detention centres.

Many senators have come into the chamber over recent days to discuss this bill. The amendments have come about as a result of two independent reviews conducted into specific incidents—

Debate interrupted.