A culture of fear among detention centre workers means neglect or abuse of refugees will remain hidden despite government attempts to assure workers they are free to speak out, doctors and a leading lawyer say.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Controversial secrecy laws, supported by the federal government and Labor, mean detention centre workers face up to two years in prison for recording or disclosing information they obtain from their job.
This has been widely interpreted as preventing doctors, teachers, counsellors and others from publicly discussing harsh conditions and potentially poor treatment of refugees in detention.
But a joint statement from Immigration and Border Protection Department secretary Michael Pezzullo and Border Force Commissioner Roman Quaedvlieg said claims that individuals were prevented from speaking out about matters of public interest or reporting child abuse, were "factually incorrect and highly misleading".
Mr Quaedvlieg said the laws "do not prevent medical professionals from seeking the best clinical outcomes for their patients".
He said workers could raise concerns using "robust" internal procedures.
However, doctor and refugee advocate John-Paul Sanggaran said such methods were often ineffective and complaints over refugee health could go unresolved for years.
Doctors for Refugees convenor and Sydney-based general practitioner Barri Phatarfod agreed, saying such concerns often ended up "in a dead-end street or mired in paperwork".
The statement said whistleblower laws meant officials who went public with concerns would not be prosecuted – a claim also made by Labor immigration spokesman Richard Marles.
But barrister and human rights advocate Julian Burnside, QC, said the laws, which fall under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, were stringent and difficult to satisfy.
Mr Burnside pointed to a potentially "powerful" defence in the separate border protection laws that allowed information to be disclosed if it reduced a risk to the life or health of a person.
But such a defence would have to be argued in court and "a lot of people don't relish the idea of being prosecuted at all, even if they are told that they'll win", he said.
Mr Burnside said neither major party properly scrutinised the legislation, which passed earlier this year, and argued the "blanket" secrecy provisions should be scrapped.
He said uncertainty around the laws meant "the chilling effect will operate and that's probably enough for the government's purposes".
Dr Phatarfod said that despite official assurances, the spectre of legal action meant the laws would have a deterrent effect.
"If you are a medical practitioner witnessing adverse events going on … you are going to think twice about following your natural instinct, which is to report," she said.
