Refugees held in offshore processing by Australia have appealed directly to the government to get them off the islands where they have been held for a decade.
In submissions to a parliamentary inquiry into the Evacuation to Safety Bill – set to be debated this week – refugees on Nauru and Papua New Guinea told the government “every day is a struggle and suffering”.
The inquiry into the bill, tabled by Greens senator Nick McKim, is expected to report back on Tuesday. Of more than 60 submissions to the inquiry, only one opposed the bill – a submission from the Department of Home Affairs.
The bill will be debated by parliament on Wednesday, but is likely to be defeated as the government is expected to oppose the bill. The legislation proposes moving refugees and asylum seekers currently held offshore by Australia to the Australian mainland. Most have been held offshore for 10 years.
Mohammad, a Hazara refugee from Afghanistan currently held in PNG, who gave only one name, said: “My hopes are to be with family, find work, stand on my own feet, feel independent and feel like a human.”
Rajah, a Tamil refugee held on Nauru who suffers from an acute kidney condition, told the inquiry he requires “both mental health and physical health care”.
“Every day is a struggle and suffering. We are here in offshore detention for 10 years now. We are also human ... take one minute for us and think about our feelings and our families. We are separated from our children, siblings and parents… if we have done anything wrong, tell us.”
The United Nations’ refugee agency told the Australian government it should move the 150 refugees and asylum seekers still held within the offshore processing regime to Australia, “to avoid further suffering”.
There are currently 66 refugees and asylum seekers on Nauru, and 92 people still held in PNG – mostly in Port Moresby. They are not in detention, but live in impoverished and often dangerous circumstances and cannot leave the islands freely. Many have serious mental and physical health problems that cannot be treated where they are held.
McKim said the bill had been deliberately drafted to be consistent with Labor’s commitments at the last election. Those transferred to Australia would have to pass security clearances and would live in the Australian community – temporarily – until they were able to resettle permanently in another country, likely the United States or New Zealand.
“Offshore detention has been one of the darkest and bloodiest chapters in our country’s story, and this bill would help write the ending,” McKim told Guardian Australia.
“It would compel the minister to offer every person in this group the opportunity to come to Australia to live in the community and receive medical treatment and other support.”
In its submission to the parliamentary inquiry, the UN high commissioner for refugees condemned the government’s “externalisation” of its protection obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers, saying Australia retained legal responsibility for those it sent offshore.
“The government of Australia cannot seek to divest itself of responsibility or limit jurisdiction and responsibility under international law for those taken to Nauru or Papua New Guinea,” the agency said.
It said that because Australia’s offshore transfer policy “contains inadequate safeguards” to protect those people sent offshore, “the health of the refugees and asylum seekers in Nauru and Papua New Guinea will continue to deteriorate”.
Australia should “bring eligible persons in Nauru and Papua New Guinea to Australia to avoid further suffering”.
The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre said: “There is currently no clear, fair or humane system to evacuate people held offshore for urgent medical treatment. Refugees held in PNG and Nauru, many with family in Australia, have waited years to be transferred for urgent medical care, with no clear process on who can approve a transfer for it to occur quickly.”
The Department of Home Affairs said it did not support the bill, arguing
“the movement of transitory persons … from Nauru to Australia requires permission from the government of Nauru, and to do so without express authority would impinge on Nauruan sovereignty and impact bilateral relations”.
The department also said the bill could split families if people were transferred without their children.
