offered.32 The bill was opposed by a small group of Liberal backbenchers. Despite the revolt, the bill gained passage through the House of Representatives. It was only withdrawn when Liberal Senator Judith Troeth threatened to cross the floor, which would have ensured its defeat in the Senate. ‘Out of sight, out of mind’ was elevated to a principle of policy. 33 Asylum seekers in offshore facilities did not have rights to legal or administrative review of their claims and Nauru was not a signatory to the UN Convention at that time. Author Peter Mares wrote that ‘The detention deals Australia struck with Nauru and Papua New Guinea appeared to violate fundamental laws in both countries.’34 Access to asylum seekers by human rights lawyers and others was limited by both regulation and by the island state’s remoteness. 35 A Parliamentary Committee visiting Nauru in 2001 found conditions to be unacceptable; there were claims of violence both amongst and against detainees, isolation and handcuffing, unsanitary conditions, hunger strikes and trauma.36 Amnesty International reported that ‘conditions were harsh’ and Greg Roberts of the Sydney Morning Herald, made an undercover visit to Manus Island in 2002 reporting that ‘diseases such as malaria, typhoid and tuberculosis were widespread’. As federal Labor MP Carmen Lawrence put it: ‘[T]he lack of hope and the brutality, both physical and psychological, produces devastating consequences on human beings.’37 The government ridiculed critics of mandatory detention and the ‘Pacific Solution’ rejecting adverse criticism and almost all recommendations for improvements. Critics were cast as ‘naïve’ and ‘do gooders’ who lacked life experience.38 When asylum seekers went on a hunger strike on Nauru, Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone said: ‘it’s not in Australian territory: it’s on Nauru and being run by other people. If someone doesn’t want to be there, they can go home.’39 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. By 2004 indefinite mandatory detention was entrenched, with the High Court accepting that aliens had fewer rights than citizens. 40 It accepted that detainees had the power to end their incarceration by voluntary repatriation.41 The Court also upheld by a slim margin (4-3) the validity of indefinite detention, providing that the immigration minister retained the intention of eventually deporting an individual.42 Minority judges dissented, submitting the argument that ‘aliens’ power must be subject to the limitations imposed by other parts of the Australian constitution. Justice Michael Kirby observed that while Australia has no equivalent of the US Fifth Amendment the requirement in our constitution that only courts can impose punishment had a similar effect: ‘[T]he common thread that runs through all these cases is that judges of our tradition incline to treat unlimited executive detention as incompatible with contemporary notions of the rule of law.’43 Public perception of a ‘crisis’ in border protection persisted, encouraged by anti-refugee rhetoric of politicians and popular media. In the late 1970s, 60 per cent of Australians wanted to let people arriving by boat stay. An analysis by sociologist Katherine Betts in 2001 revealed that in 1993, 44 per cent wanted to send ‘boat people’ back without assessing their claims and 46 per cent approved of holding them in detention while their claims were assessed. In 2001, 77 per cent of Australians supported the Coalition government’s decision to refuse entry to the Tampa and 71 per cent believed boat arrivals should be detained.44 The Gang of Four — Children Out of Detention When Parliament resumed in 2005, four Liberal Party Members of Parliament, Petro Georgiou, Russell Broadbent, Bruce Baird and the author (Judi Moylan) met to discuss concerns about indefinite mandatory detention and the impact on children.45 Mary Crock and Laurie Berg, Immigration, Refugees and Forced Migration, Law, Policy and Practice in Australia. The Federation Press 2011. Stanley Cohen elaborates on this concept in States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering, Cambridge Polity Press. Peter Mares, Borderline p131, UNSW Press 2002. It took Joint Committee a year to negotiate their visit in 2001. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Human Rights sub-committee, A Visit to Immigration Detention Centres, June 2001. Wendy Bacon, Our Nauru Amnesia, p5 of 11, http://newmatilda.com, July 25 2012. The Hon Philip Ruddock, Minister for Immigration, June 19, 2001, Press Reports. Editorial, Sydney Morning Herald, December 19, 2003. Mary Crock and Laurie Berg Immigration Refugees and Forced Migration, Law, Policy and Practice in Australia, p 68, The Federation Press 2011. Ibid. p69. Peter Prince, The High Court and Indefinite Detention: Toward a national Bill of Rights? Executive summary, p2. Law and Bills Digest, Parliament of Australia, November 16, 2004. Ibid p7. Janet Phillips and Harriet Spinks, Boat Arrivals in Australia Since 1976. p6, July 9, 2012 Australian Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia. Joint Select Committee, Australia’s Immigration Detention Network, p15. Paragraphs 2.13 and 2.14 Final Report, 2012, Parliament of Australia. Issue 205 Prison Service Journal 19