Detention secrecy law challenged

AUSTRALIA – The Border Force Act prohibiting workers in Australia’s detention centres from sharing confidential information is to be challenged in the High Court by a group of doctors who say it is having a “chilling effect on their profession”.

Doctors for Refugees will launch the High Court challenge against the secrecy provisions within the Act that states an “entrusted person” who discloses protected information can face up to two years in prison.

Convenor of Doctors for Refugees, Dr Barri Phatarfod, told the ABC she hoped the challenge would allow more doctors to come forward to describe the conditions they witness within immigration detention centres.

“The fact that we can have a law silencing people flies in the face of free expression in democracy,” she said. “It’s having a chilling effect and doctors are less likely to come forward.”

The Government passed the Border Force Act last year, with the help of Labor’s vote.

No-one has been charged under the act yet, despite a number of doctors speaking out against the conditions they witnessed in offshore detention centres, including former medical director of the service provider International Health Medical Services Dr Peter Young, and paediatrician Dr David Isaacs.

But Dr Phatarfod said the lack of charges was not the point of the challenge.

“Many doctors have approached us to say they have concerns but they are unable to do anything about it,” she said.

The Immigration Department has always contended that the secrecy provisions will not prevent any worker’s ability to raise genuine concerns about conditions in detention through “appropriate channels” and that whistleblower protections were in place.

But Meghan Fitzgerald from Fitzroy Legal Service, whose legal team is bringing the case to the High Court, said the fact detention centres are operated by a private company could jeopardise their protection under the whistleblower laws – which apply to government employees.

Fitzgerald said doctors should have the freedom to engage in political discussions if that means disclosing information they witness in offshore or onshore detention.

She plans to argue the laws break the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication. The right is less broad than the United States’ right to freedom of speech.

The case is partly funded by activist group GetUp and Fitzgerald is providing free legal advice.

An Immigration Department statement said: “The Department has not received a High Court application by the Fitzroy Legal Service on behalf of Doctors for Refugees. If an application is served it will be considered and responded to in due course.” - ABC