Senator XENOPHON (12:21 PM) —Over the past few years there has been a lot of discussion about illegal arrivals in Australia—indeed, in recent months the debate has been hotting up. Almost everyone has an opinion—about what their motives are, about whether Australia should accept them, about how we process them, about how we treat them once they are here and about whether there should be offshore processing on Christmas Island. These are important discussions that we need to have, and I do not think many people would disagree with that. At the outset I want to acknowledge that this a complex and divisive issue. There are more than two sides to this argument and more options than the all-or-nothing choices that we are often presented with.

I also want to acknowledge that this Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010 refers to people smugglers—those who make money off the desperation of others—rather than the arrivals themselves. I agree that as a country we should be taking steps to try to deter smugglers who charge exorbitant fees and offer pie-in-the-sky promises only to put their charges lives at risk in rickety boats and rough seas. We have seen in recent days this very example: the five Sri Lankan Tamils who went missing after their boat ran out of fuel somewhere to the west of the Cocos Islands. Those five are now presumed dead and the remaining 59 people on the stricken boat had to be rescued by the crew of a Slovenian freighter. If media reports are to be believed, this happened just five days after Australian authorities first learned that the boat was out of fuel. Apparently, the missing men had left the boat to try to find help for others on board, which included women and children.

Even worse was the SIEV X disaster in 2001. I note that Senator Faulkner when in opposition was outspoken and courageous in pursuing that particular incident. I think it was referred to as a Certain Maritime Incident in the reports. In that horrific incident, 65 men, 142 women and 146 children died off the coast of Java on their way to Australia. We need to make it clear that this should not happen at all. We need to show that Australia values human life and that we condemn the treatment of people as ‘just another commodity’.

However, I have concerns about the possible unintended consequences of this bill. My colleague Senator Hanson-Young, on behalf of the Australian Greens, has raised valid concerns that the bill could breach Australia’s international human rights obligations and I share some of these concerns. I am concerned that this bill is simply too heavy-handed. It does have good elements in terms of an expanded role for ASIO. That is a good thing. It is important that intelligence services and exchanging of information can nip the problem in the bud and prevent the people smugglers doing their business in the first place. Whilst I have always had the view that our intelligence agencies should be subject to robust scrutiny by this parliament, it is important that we have that exchange of information.

These concerns, and Senator Hanson-Young has articulated them very well, include the broadness of the definitions included in the bill. Under this bill people acting on humanitarian grounds, or offering financial support to refugees overseas, can be charged with people-smuggling offences. This bill treats good Samaritans the same as ‘for profit’ people smugglers, which means that under this bill the nuns from The Sound of Music could be thrown into jail. That is one of the unintended consequences of this bill. That is plainly ridiculous.

Senator Scullion —A highly suspect lot anyway.

Senator XENOPHON —I think Senator Scullion said that the nuns were a highly suspect lot anyway. I am sure he said that tongue firmly in cheek.

A few years ago when the Prime Minister was an opposition frontbencher, he wrote an article for The Monthly about Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the role Christianity should take in society. There was a fair amount of criticism aimed at that article and some derision of the Prime Minister when he was then in opposition, but basically I think that the Prime Minister was right, although the arguments he made could apply to anyone, not just Christians. His piece on Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a powerful piece. It was well written, well researched, and it made a point about the issue of moral imperatives in public life. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran pastor and was one of the first and most outspoken opponents of Hitler and Nazism. He is famous for his writings on theology advocating moral imperatives and he assisted people out of Nazi Germany. He assisted Jews to escape Nazi Germany so that they could avoid the fate that befell six million people of the Jewish faith.

Reverend Tim Costello of World Vision—my good friend—has said that, today, Bonhoeffer would be considered a people smuggler. Interestingly, around the same time Bonhoeffer was travelling secretly around East Germany to encourage a Christian movement against Nazism, delegates from countries around the world were gathering for the Evian Conference. The conference held in July of 1938 at Evian-les-Bains in France was called to discuss the issue of growing numbers of Jewish refugees fleeing from Germany. While most of the delegates expressed their sympathy for the refugees, none of the countries, except the Dominican Republic, were too keen on taking more immigrants than their ‘quota’.

One of the Australian delegates was Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas W. White, at the time Minister for Trade and Customs. His attitude on behalf of Australia was:

He went on to add:

So, in other words, Australia’s position in 1938 was ‘We are very sorry, but it is not our problem.’ We all know what happened in the events following 1938.

Last week, I received a copy of Australia’s Human Rights Framework which, according to the accompanying letter from the Attorney-General, ‘outlines action the government will take to promote and protect human rights’. Two of the measures outlined in the framework were the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee on human rights and the introduction of statements of compatibility with UN human rights treaties to accompany all new legislation. I believe the government when they say they are committed to human rights and to protecting Australia’s international reputation.

So my preference would be for the government to postpone debate on this bill until these two framework measures are established and introduced. This way, the joint parliamentary committee on human rights can then review this legislation in terms of our human rights obligations. It does not have to be a lengthy process. It is important that we deal with this, but let us put the safeguards in place. Let us not have unintended consequences.

The government can then issue a statement of compatibility on this legislation so that we can be confident in Australia’s dedication to human rights. This is an issue where there are literally lives at stake. Without the government taking these measures to ensure that we have the best possible legislation in place, the most effective legislation in place and one that is fair and without unintended consequences, I cannot support this bill in its current form.