Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the Select Committee report on Nauru. I rise in relation to a number of contributions made by government ministers and government senators in which they made remarks about the alleged witch-hunt and the alleged airing of allegations without substantial evidence. I want to touch on a couple of points that I think are really pertinent to this debate.

A submission came before the committee from the Hon. Geoffrey M Eames AM QC. Mr Eames submitted to the committee that, in December 2010, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Republic of Nauru by the President, Marcus Stephen. Mr Eames held that position until 13 March 2014. In his submission, Mr Eames states:

My resignation was forced, because the Nauru government of President Baron Waqa MP had revoked my visa, thus making it impossible for me to perform the role of Chief Justice. The actions of the Nauru government constituted a series of flagrant breaches of the Rule of Law. The fact that the government is not committed to the Rule of Law should be a matter of concern to the Australian government.

He goes on to say:

Resident Magistrate and Registrar of the Supreme Court, Peter Law, was arrested on 19 January 2014, forced on to an aeroplane and deported under police escort. No reasons were given to him by the government for this extraordinary action. The reasons, however, are now very clear – Mr Law had offended the Minister for Justice and Border Control, Mr David Adeang, by making interim orders, as Registrar, restraining the unlawful deportation of two expatriate businessmen, an Australian, Rod Henshaw, and a Fijian, Mohammed Haneef.

If that was not enough, Mr Richard Britten's appointment as commissioner of the Nauru Police Force was terminated on 19 July 2013. This is the evidence that this committee has taken. It has been publicised. It has not been rebutted. It is not unsubstantiated. It is a simple fact. People were arrested and deported—three people who, I would contend, were assisting the government of Nauru, the Republic of Nauru, in providing an independent police force and an independent judiciary. Any semblance of transparency, justice and accountability which the Australian government could rely on is now no longer there. This is the evidence that came to this committee.

We have had contributions in this chamber that said we dealt with 'unsubstantiated allegations' that have all been dealt with by other parties. I am sure that Senator Carr is in vehement agreement with me when I say that that is not the case. That is simply not the case. No-one has rebutted the contentions of Mr Law or Mr Eames. The Australian federal policeman has basically remained silent, as he probably needs to do in terms of his contract of employment.

We do know that there is an absence of ability to prosecute, to forensically evaluate, in the Nauruan police force. We know that because this minister has recognised it. He sent additional officers to Nauru to assist them in building their capacity. It is extraordinary and exceedingly strange that a minister can look one way and row another. He says that all of the Moss review allegations and all of the allegations that have been made before the four recent inquiries are all being capably dealt with by the responsible Republic of Nauru—who threw out the Australian Police Commissioner, threw out the Chief Justice and threw out the Chief Magistrate. They deported them—house arrest and on you go. Now we are expected to take from the minister and the minister representing the minister in the Senate that it is all okay and that these 'untested' allegations will all be handled competently by the government of Nauru.

We know that other nations have expressed concern about supporting funds that go to justice in Nauru. I think the New Zealand government is on the record as having expressed concern. I think our own foreign minister is actually on the record has having expressed some concern. But, no, people can come into this chamber and say that the evidence before the Nauru select committee was untested and basically not factual. I would like to see the evidence that was put before the committee that rebutted not claims, but facts. Where was the evidence that rebutted these facts?

If we are going to rely on the justice system in Nauru to provide good, humane, legally transparent treatment for people who may settle in Nauru from the RPC or who may be in the RPCs and have a complaint against someone, then the initial recommendation is that this government give back resourcing for the judiciary and the police force to get in place a proper and transparent police and judicial system that includes child protection legislation. Apparently child protection legislation does not exist in Nauru. It should have child protection laws.

We have the awful situation where the allegations have not been rebutted and people have endured awful criminality. The Nauruan police, whether because of a lack of training or a lack of resources, have not acted on those. People under the control and care of Australia are not being treated in the same way as they would be in this great country of ours. That is Australia's shame. We cannot allow this to go on. These people need to have access to a judicial system and the care and help of a police force that is adequately trained and resourced and capable of prosecuting. There is no evidence that that is the case.

One of the firmest recommendations the committee made was that the Australian government, if it wants to rely on the Republic of Nauru in these matters, should make sure Nauru have the wherewithal. It should make sure they have the competent people and the assistance to carry out prosecutions, to collect forensic evidence and to protect children in detention and in the community. There is no evidence that we have stepped to the plate in respect of that. That is the first recommendation that this government should take up.

The minister's responsibility is very, very clear. But he has done exactly the opposite of what he should have. He has labelled this inquiry a witch-hunt. He has labelled it a political stunt. But the awful reality is that the Nauruan police force is deficient in its prosecutorial capacity. It is deficient in its collection of forensic evidence. It is not through any great fault of theirs. There are only 100 people in the Nauruan police force. We cannot expect them to act with the capacity of the Australian Federal Police. But we can make sure they have resources, backup and training. We can provide that and we are not at the moment. We have some Australian police officers trying to do their best in Nauru as we speak. But it needs to be a continuous, reinforced, funded effort.

We really need to get serious about this. We cannot have Australia's reputation at risk because we have underresourced the police force and magisterial areas of the Republic of Nauru. They are making a lot of money out of Australia's efforts there. We need to get on the job here and fix a few things.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those in the chamber and those who might be listening to this on broadcast might almost agree with Senator Gallacher, but I will just remind people of the history. Senator Gallacher complains about a police commissioner who was sacked on 19 July 2013. I ask people to remember July 2013. That was the very time that Senator Gallacher, Senator Conroy, Senator Wong and Senator Carr were in a government that was doing a deal with the nation of Nauru. If it was so bad, why did Mr Rudd and Senator Conroy agree to the deal? They did. They sent these boat people to Nauru. The evidence at this and other inquiries has clearly shown that it was all done in such a rush because Mr Rudd, Senator Conroy and others realised the political and voting impact of their failure on border protection and so they grabbed at any straw to try to recover some political momentum. In doing that, they did the deal with Manus. According to Senator Gallacher, they did it at the time that the Nauruan government was actually sacking the police commissioner who Senator Gallacher is so worried about.

Senator Gallacher, if you are worried about it now, why weren't you worried about it then? Why didn't you say to Mr Rudd, 'Hang on. We can't do a deal with this country because they have just sacked the police commissioner and they don't want the judge to remain'? They made the arrangement. Senator Conroy was a senior member of the cabinet that made that deal. Yet those opposite have the hide to come in here now and complain about something that they put in place at the time that, according to them, the Nauruan government was wrongfully, illegally and undemocratically sacking their police commissioner. If it is bad now, it was bad when they did the deal.

The Greens political party are equally complicit because they supported the Labor Party in most of the decisions made at the time—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. That is misleading the chamber. The Australian Greens voted every single time against the establishment of Nauru and Manus Island—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a debating point, Senator Hanson-Young. There is no point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the Greens political party voted with the government on almost every decision the Rudd and Gillard government made and had enormous influence on that government. They threatened to cross the floor and vote with us and bring the government down. When the government went ahead with the arrangement in Manus, of course they did not cross the floor. The hypocrisy of the Greens political party knows no bounds.

My concern with these reports is that they are always politically motivated. Senator Hanson-Young, with the support of the Australian Labor Party, has suggested and initiated so many inquiries into these things, but they are all politically motivated; they are all set up with committees that have a majority of Labor and Greens and Green Independent senators. They know the outcome before they go there, and it gives Senator Hanson-Young—with all due respect to you, Senator Hanson-Young; I do not want to belittle you—the opportunity to expose her expertise on this. She has looked at Sea Patrol episodes over many months, so she knows all about these things and how they work. The committee would rightly report before it had even had a hearing, and I suggest that that is what has happened now.

I simply cannot understand Senator Gallacher and other members from the Labor Party complaining about something that they set up. I am only going on your advice, Senator Gallacher, that it was on 19 July 2013. That was the very time that Mr Rudd and Senator Conroy were wining and dining these people from that country, making the deal. Why did they not say then, 'We're going to give you enough money, but we're only going to do this if you properly train your police, your judges and your parliamentarians. We'll only give you the money and do the deal with you if you do that.' Did they do that? No, of course they did not.

The Labor Party in government made this deal with a sovereign country. What does Senator Gallacher want us to do now? Perhaps, Senator Gallacher, we should mobilise the army and invade Nauru? We will teach them a lesson or two; we will invade the country and set up a democratic parliament, a proper judicial system and a proper police system! We will have Australian troops surrounding the place so that this little nation learns its lesson. Is that what you want? How else are you going to—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Macdonald. Senator Gallacher, on a point of order?

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I am quite happy to engage in a debate across the chamber if he wants to waive standing orders.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on both sides! Before I call Senator Macdonald back, I did note that in your contribution, Senator Gallacher, you were heard in silence and there were no interjections on my right. Could I indicate to senators that they should listen to senators in silence.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I know you do not mean it in this way, but if they did listen to me in silence they might actually learn something and understand. The honourable senator who spoke before me, Senator Gallacher, wants us to do something about it. There are a lot of countries around the world that I think are deficient in the way they run their parliaments or their police, but what do we do? Do we send in Australia's army to overrun them? We will teach them how to do it properly, Senator Gallacher. We do not like the way they are running their government, but what can we do? Is that what you want us to do—invade the country? 'We'll show them a thing or two. We'll teach them how to run a democracy! We'll teach them how to run a police force.' How ludicrous! This is an independent country. They are carrying out an agreement with another sovereign nation, Australia—an agreement made by the Rudd Labor government, of which Senator Conroy was a senior member. They are discharging the agreement and the promises that were made at that time.

Since then there have been problems, but every person in the know who gave evidence agreed that the reason for the problems was that the deal done by Mr Rudd and Senator Conroy was done in such haste that none of this was looked at. None of the proper resourcing was done. They just had to do something to try to save their own political bacon. And yet now the Labor Party, having had a conversion to purity since the election, want us to go in, invade Nauru and teach them how to do it properly.

What the current government did, as best it could, dealing with the internal affairs of another country, was to set up an independent inquiry with the agreement of that country—not a political witch-hunt in which the Labor, Greens and Green Independents have a majority, but an inquiry by an independent, respected former public servant, Mr Moss, who went in with all the resources that were needed and made a sensible investigation. As well as that there were police investigations, to the best of our ability as a nation looking at what might have happened in another nation but confining ourselves to where we were invited or to offences that might have occurred within Australia's jurisdiction. These brought out recommendations. As I understand it the government's reply, which is later in the documents that we will be debating today, indicates that most of the recommendations of these independent inquiries—I think probably all of, although I cannot be precise on that—have been put into place by the government, so far as the government is able to do in another nation's jurisdiction.

So again I say to the Greens and the Labor Party: you complain loud and long now, but where were you when your government, the Greens-Labor government, put these arrangements into place? Where were you? When you can answer that question I will give this debate a little more credibility than anyone who is listening to it could possibly ever give to it at the present time.

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

I think it is appalling to hear the level of debate we just heard from the previous speaker on an issue that is incredibly serious: the abuse of children and the rape of women inside the Nauru detention camp, done at the hands of guards paid for by the Australian taxpayer, funded by the Australian taxpayer, overseen by the Australian government and managed by the Australian government's contractor, Transfield Services. If this place is not able to discuss the spending of $1.2 billion to run this camp and ensure that children are safe and that women are not being raped—if we are not going to take responsibility for it—who will?

It is precisely why, when the legislation was first drafted to re-establish Nauru and Manus Island, I stood with my Greens colleagues in this place and moved amendment after amendment after amendment to try to put in safeguards. And who voted against every single one of those amendments? Senator Macdonald, and every single member of the coalition—and, I might say, every member of the Labor Party in this place too.

So: the mistakes have now been realised. This camp is horrendous. It is shameful that we are leaving vulnerable people there who have committed no crime but to try to get themselves and their families out of a war zone. And today, of all days, when we are discussing Australia taking more people from the war zones in Syria and Iraq, you have got to wonder: where is the common sense and the debate about other people who have already tried to get here, for safety, and have been shipped off to be dumped and locked up on Nauru, and are being abused, harmed and hurt?

We hear from government members that that is all okay and we should not be asking any questions. No—not good enough; absolutely not good enough.

Thankfully, we have seen, particularly over the last few days but increasingly over the last weeks and months, an opening of heart and a compassion and a desire to welcome people who are in such desperate need of protection and safety. When they flee from war zones, families get torn apart; lives get destroyed. And, for the people who made their way to Australia in the vain hope that they might find protection and safety here, we now need to turn our generosity of heart and our compassion to what we can do for those people here as well, because they have fled the same wars. They are fleeing the same ogres.

My daughter said to me that she described what a refugee was to her class. We were talking about what 'refugees' meant and what they were. And she said, 'Mum, refugees are people who are fleeing ogres and hot lava, and they need help.' If an eight-year-old child can get it, and if the Australian community is starting to desire and call for a proper response from our government, the very least we can have is a bit more civilised debate in this chamber about the people who are being harmed in the places that we have locked them up in.

They will not be forgotten. They should not be forgotten. And I am never going to be in this place and let somebody stand there and laugh off the abuse and rape of children and women that is happening in Australian institutions. It is appalling.

I obviously have a lot more to say in relation to this report, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.