Politics

The Medevac Laws Have Just Been Scrapped, Here’s What That Actually Means

"It is a very dark day that will mean refugees lives will again be in the hands of politicians who have shown they will deliberately withhold medical treatment from people who desperately need it."

by Rachael Conaghan  4 December 2019
jacqui lambie medevac laws

Want more Junkee in your life? Sign up to our newsletter, and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook so you always know where to find us.

Australia’s medevac laws are dead, much like the 12 asylum seekers who failed to receive adequate medical care before the laws were brought in.

The repeal bill passed the Senate with 37 votes to 35 this morning.

With the Senate otherwise deadlocked, the fate of medevac rested with Jacqui Lambie, who cried as she revealed she was supporting the government in scrapping the laws. Doctors and human rights activists have repeatedly said the laws were vital to saving the lives of sick people in our offshore detention centres.

People have reacted angrily to the news.

Last week Lambie said she would help repeal medevac if the government agreed on one condition, which she refused to reveal due to “national security”.

But the government’s Senate leader, Mathias Cormann, denied there was any kind of secret deal.

But half an hour later, Lambie said this:

“I put to the government a proposal, and since then we have worked together really hard to advance that proposal. We’ve worked to an outcome I believe we both want, which is an outcome that our borders are secure, the boats have stopped and sick people aren’t dying waiting for treatment.”

“I’m not being coy or silly when I say I genuinely can’t say what I proposed. I know that’s frustrating to people, and I get that. But when I say I can’t discuss it publicly due to national security concerns, I am being 100 per cent honest with you,” she said.

Questions are now swirling about what deal she did with the government to lock in her vote — and she’s being slammed for keeping the details a secret.

Labor Senator Kristina Keneally said any more deaths after the repeal of medevac would be on the government’s conscience.

“The fact remains, the only reason medevac was ever needed was because Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton refused lifesaving medical transfers for sick people,” she said.

The Senate vote was the final hurdle after MP’s in the House of Representatives voted to repeal back in July. As the vote crept closer Lambie was inundated by people petitioning her to keep the medevac laws as they were.

Earlier this week an open letter signed by 5000 doctors urged politicians to keep the law, saying it had helped save lives.

Was This Expected?

There have been weeks of speculation about which way Lambie would vote.

Last month a Senate committee — dominated by government senators — recommended the laws be scrapped, despite the overwhelming evidence that was submitted. Of the 95 public submissions made to the committee, 93 were strongly in favour of keeping the laws as they were.

The remaining two were from the Department of Home Affairs, and the government-contracted health provider on Nauru.

Lambie said she would look over the findings of the report before making her decision.

But last week she revealed she would help the government repeal the legislation on one condition — a condition she would not reveal, saying it affected national security.

At the time she told the AAP: “I think what you’ll find with medevac is it may not look like it does today.”

“Anything that’s got to do with humanity is always really, really difficult to have to take a vote on, so that’s why I’m taking a little bit longer than I know that many people would have hoped.”

Last week Minister Scott Morrison told the ABC repealing medevac would be a big win to end the year on. Because returning to a policy which led to the death of twelve people is apparently something to celebrate.

As she revealed her position this morning, Lambie said there were real problems with the way medevac was operating. This is despite her statement last week saying she didn’t believe the government’s Operation Sovereign Borders was undermined by medevac.

Why Did Doctors Support Medevac?

Health professionals and refugee advocates praised the legislation for taking medical decisions out of the hands of politicians.

Several health organisations released statements last week urging politicians not to repeal the bill, including the Public Health Association of Australia.

Before medevac, doctors could ask for patients to be transferred, but it was up to the government — more specifically, Peter Dutton — to agree.

Sometimes he did, often he didn’t.

As a result lawyers had to fight for court orders to get patients bought to Australia for help. This required the court to convene at short notice to hear cases, costing huge amounts of money and causing delays in treatment.

And, in true petty style, Dutton continued to appeal the federal court’s decision after it ruled against him numerous times.

What Exactly Was Medevac?

The Bill was designed to give health professionals more control over the medical care of refugees and asylum seekers in Australia’s care.

Basically, if someone in our offshore detention centres require urgent treatment, two independent Australian doctors could recommend they be temporarily transferred here if they are not receiving appropriate treatment.

One that happens, Peter Dutton — as the Home Affairs Minister — had 72 hours to approve the transfer or not. If he refused, the decision was sent to the panel of independent doctors for review.

If that panel recommended the transfer be approved, the Minister had 24 hours to approve or deny it. He could refuse if he believed the person would harm Australia’s security, or they have a substantial criminal record.

So basically, all that stuff he was saying about having no control over who was coming to Australia? Yeah, not true.

What Made Medevac So Controversial?

Since the Medevac Bill was passed in February it has become a flashpoint for those with opposing views relating to immigration and national security.

It was humiliating for the government when it was passed in February, and they have been fighting to repeal it ever since.

Why?

Well, the vote was a massive loss for the Coalition, only possible because Labor, the Greens and other crossbenchers teamed up against the government which was in a minority at the time.

That makes it the first time a government lost a vote on legislation in the lower house since 1941 (but that was only about a Budget amendment — the last time someone lost a substantive vote was way back in 1929).

Talk about being on the wrong side of history.