Australiasantiwhistleblowerlawsfortheimmigrationsector:concernsforinvestorsand

financiersofimmigrationdetentioncontractors

BrynnOBrien,Business&HumanRightsTechnicalAdviser
NoBusinessinAbuse
PaperfortheUNForumonBusinessandHumanRights,Geneva,18November2015

Context

Iamgoing to shift the context slightlyfromwhat wehave heard from previous panelists. Were goingfrom
national security and corruption to immigration, specifically immigration detention. And I encourage you,
while I am delivering this presentation, to reflect upon whether the purpose of antidisclosure laws in
immigration detentionmay bedistinguishablefromtheirpurposein othercontexts.Ill returntothis ideaat
theendofmytalk.

Bywayofbackground:

The Australian Government has a policy of mandatory, indefinite detention of asylum seekers arrivingby
boat.Australia standsalone intheworldinthis policy. It isapolicy which has beencondemnedbytheUN
HumanRightsCommitteeonatleast8separateoccasions. 1

The Australian government runs immigration detention centres in Australia and in the Pacific2 and the
implementation ofthe policyisoutsourcedintwoways. First,bysituatingtwoofthecentresin othernations,
Nauru and PapuaNewGuineacountries withsignificant rule of law issues to say the leastandbothof
which rely onAustralian aidand developmentfunding. Second,bycontractingwithcorporationsincluding
ASXlistedcompanyBroadspectrumLimitedwhichoperationallyimplementitspolicies.

My organisation,No Business in Abuse,released a115pagereportinOctober 2015 detailingviolationsof

47 principles of internationallaw inanoffshoredetention context 3,andcorporatecomplicityinthoseabuses.
The abuses are ofa serious nature, occur a massive scale andhaveasystematicdimension.Theyinclude
arbitrary,indefinitedetention,andcruel,inhumananddegradingtreatment.

This is a textbook case under the GuidingPrinciples.A company,contractedby a state, iscontributingto

adverse human rights impacts which amount to gross violations of international law. State sanctioned
abusesshould becondemnedwherever theyoccur, even ifthestates inquestionare otherwiseourfriends
andtradingpartners.Tobefrank,theinternationalcommunityhasnotdoneenoughinthissituation.

SeeUNHRCdecisions
AvAustralia(560/93),CvAustralia(900/99),BabanvAustralia(1014/01),ShafiqvAustralia(1324/04),
ShamsetalvAustralia(1255,1256,1259,1260,1266,1268,1270and1288/04),BakhtiyarivAustralia(1069/02)andDandEv
Australia(1050/02)
2

https://www.border.gov.au/Busi/Comp/Immigrationdetention/facilities
3

http://bit.ly/NBIAreport
1

Antiwhistleblowerlaws

The Australian
Border Force Act
, a law which came into force on the first of July this year,
makes it a criminal offence, punishable by two years imprisonment, for anyone who doeswork
(directly or indirectly) for the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection to
disclose any information obtained by them while doing thatwork.4TheAct doesnotspecifyany
exemptions in relationtothemandatoryreportingofphysicalormentalharm,childabuseorany
other such purpose in the public interest. It is clear that its provisions apply to Broadspectrum
and any other parties providing services to the Manus and Nauru RPCs. Up until the
commencement of this law, the same disclosures may have amounted to a breach of an
individualscontractualobligationswithanemployer,butwerenotclassifiedasanoffence.

The government and company line is that there are internalchannelsthroughwhichconcerned

individuals can make authorised disclosures, but the fact of criminalisation of unauthorised
disclosure remains. I alsocontextualisethisenvironmentasoneinwhichtherehasbeenalmost
total impunity for human rightsabusesof thisnature,overanextendedperiodoftime.Thatisto
put a question mark over whether there is a sufficient level of trust in the government and in
companies in this context to make an official complaints system an inappropriate or sufficient
channelfordisclosuresofhumanrightsviolationsformanywhistleblowers.Theysimplymaynot
havetheconfidencethattheseriousconcernstheyraisewillbeaddressed.

In September 2015, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants cancelled a
plannedvisittoAustralia.Thiswashisreasoning:

In preparing for my visit, it came to my attention that the 2015Border ForceAct,which sanctionsdetention
centre serviceproviders who disclose protectedinformationwithatwoyearcourt sentence, wouldhavean
impact on my visit as it serves to discourage people from fully disclosing information relevant to my
mandate This threat of reprisals with persons who would want to cooperate with me on the occasionof
thisofficialvisit is unacceptable The Act prevents me from fully and freely carrying out my duties during
thevisit,as required by theUNguidelinesforindependentexperts As theAustralian Government wasnot
prepared to give the written assurances [that people would not face reprisals for speaking with me] for

(Cth),
AustralianBorderForceAct2015,

ActNo.40of2015,
2015,pt.6.section4
:
entrustedperson
means:(a)theSecretaryor(b)theAustralianBorderForceCommissioner(includinginhisorhercapacityas
theComptroller
GeneralofCustoms)or(c)anImmigrationandBorderProtectionworker.
ImmigrationandBorderProtectionworker
means:(a)anAPSemployeeintheDepartmentor(b)apersoncoveredby
paragraph(d),(e)or(f)ofthedefinitionof
officerofCustoms
insubsection4(1)ofthe
CustomsAct1901
or(c)apersoncovered
byparagraph(f)or(g)ofthedefinitionof
officer
insubsection5(1)ofthe
MigrationAct1958
or(d)apersonwhois:(i)an
employeeofanAgency(withinthemeaningofthe
PublicServiceAct1999)
or(ii)anofficeroremployeeofaStateorTerritoryor
(iii)anofficeroremployeeofanagencyorauthorityoftheCommonwealth,aStateoraTerritoryor(iv)anofficeroremployeeof
thegovernmentofaforeigncountry,anofficeroremployeeofanagencyorauthorityofaforeigncountryoranofficeroremployee
ofapublicinternationalorganisationandwhoseservicesaremadeavailabletotheDepartmentor(e)apersonwhois:(i)
engagedasaconsultantorcontractortoperformservicesfortheDepartmentand(ii)specifiedinadeterminationundersubsection
5(1)or(f)apersonwhois:(i)engagedoremployedbyapersontowhomparagraph(e)orthisparagraphappliesand(ii)
performingservicesfortheDepartmentinconnectionwiththatengagementoremploymentand(iii)specifiedinadetermination
undersubsection5(2)


factfinding missions by Special Rapporteurs, it was not possible for meto carryoutthe visitin my capacity
asaUNindependentexpert.5

Ourworkwiththeprivatesector

This is not a story of civil society against the private sector. In fact, itsquitedifferent its a storyofcivil
societyandalargepartoftheprivatesectorworkingtogethertoattempttoendasystemofhorrificabuse.

Over the last 12 months, my organisation has met with a broad crosssection of the Australian private
sector, including with companieswithbusinessrelationships(primarilyinvestmentandfinancerelationships)
with Broadspectrum.We have provided informationabout theabusesofimmigrationdetentionandaperiod
of engagement has followed, wherea number ofcompanieshave engageddirectlywithBroadspectrum to
seekinformation,andtoseekanendtothehumanrightsviolations.

Some companiescontinuetoengage,some havechosendivestment. And some ofthosewho havetaken

the latterpath haveexplicitly citedtheirinabilityto accessanappropriatelevelofinformationasareasonfor
theirdecisions.6

Inshort:antiwhistleblowerlawsshould bea red flagto the stakeholdersofprivatesectoractors

subject to them. They should be added to finance, investment and procurement screening
processes.

A final remark on the immigration detention context the purpose of these laws is not comparable to the
national security context.The purpose oftheselawsis simplycontrolofinformation,includinginformation
about serious human rightsabuses. Associationwith thesetypesofabusesthroughbusinessrelationships
shouldbeofsignificantconcerntoanycompanyforwhichreputationisalongtermvalueproposition.

5
6

Seemoreat:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16503&LangID=E#sthash.uNDcS0pw.dpuf
seeforexample
http://www.afr.com/news/hestadiveststransfieldcitingdetentioncentreabuses20150818gj1krb