Senator BARTLETT (6:49 PM) —I rise to speak to Senator Hogg's motion to take note of the document, the Refugee Review Tribunal Report for 2000-01, which I fully support. Refugees are big in the news at the moment, not in relation to the actions of the Refugee Review Tribunal, although it is an important part of the process that has also come under significant scrutiny. It is just one more example, sadly, of the situation where this government has refused to listen to any number of constructive suggestions from people from all parts of the community and all parts of the parliament for positive ways to improve our system.

Recently, we have had the Prime Minister talking about the system he has put in place and saying that there are aspects of it that are not ideal or pleasant but that there is no alternative. I think we can put that one into the ever-growing category of prime ministerial falsehoods, because there is an alternative. There are plenty of alternatives; the only problem is that the government is not interested in looking at them. The key challenge now is for us to add to the pressure throughout the community for those alternatives to be examined in a constructive way.

The Refugee Review Tribunal was examined in detail by a Senate committee in an inquiry which I initiated through a motion in this chamber a couple of years ago. It was a comprehensive and really constructive inquiry, I believe. It was chaired very ably by Senator McKiernan. The Liberal members of the committee, Senator Coonan and Senator Payne, both contributed very constructively. It was obviously, even then, a very touchy topic politically, but the committee worked well together to examine it in as objective and constructive a way as possible.

We produced a report which was almost completely unanimous. As it is with such things, where you are trying to be unanimous and trying to come to agreement, each of us probably gave ground a bit in what we would like as the ideal so that we could get unanimous outcomes, and we achieved that. People from across the parties—Democrats, Labor and Liberal—and Senator Harradine participated in that inquiry, all putting forward constructive options, many of which touched on the operations of the Refugee Review Tribunal and all of which were ignored by the government.

The key problem with the Refugee Review Tribunal that is becoming more and more critical is not the quality of its members, most of whom do a very difficult job ably and conscientiously. The problem is the political environment in which they have to operate. Whilst it is meant to be an independent administrative review, the fact that the members are appointed by the minister for short terms means that any member who seems to be stepping out of the appropriate line, in terms of being seen to be more accommodating to claims than others, knows that they do so at the peril of not being re-appointed and losing their job. That is a very significant impediment to people, even in a subconscious way, and that is human nature, it is not a criticism. It is natural for people to be affected by that sort of pressure. The other problem is that the actions of the Refugee Review Tribunal, because of the major changes to the migration act that have been made by this government and supported by the Labor Party each time, are not open to adequate scrutiny in terms of ensuring that there is remedy if they do not do their job properly.

People are probably not aware but there is no scope for appealing to the courts or to anywhere in relation to decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal on the grounds of them not following natural justice. They are exempt from having to follow natural justice. There is a whole range of exemptions that are listed in the act where people cannot appeal a decision on a whole range of grounds. That severely restricts people's scope for accountability if the tribunal makes a ghastly mistake. Again, human nature being what it is, that can happen from time to time. That is always a problem, but in this area it is particularly a problem because you are literally talking about life and death issues. If you get it wrong, you send someone back to face serious persecution and then it is a bit late to say sorry. So it is a crucial area. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.