The proposed mobile phone ban for refugees, asylum seekers and others in administrative detention

The neolib national government is proposing to ban refugees, asylum seekers and others in administrative (and "arbitrary and illegal") detention from having mobile phones. (I read an excellent description of this a few years ago, but all I can find now is this - although it is written for Europe, the principles still apply here.)

This has been characterised as preventing "criminals" (there are questions about whether the changes really detect criminals) being able to use the phones to commit criminal acts, as people being deported are now also included in administrative detention prior to being deported. (If they are really concerned about children, then stop religious and other abuse of LGBTIQ+ children: otherwise the claims are worse than empty noise, they are hypocritical and malicious.)

There are a number of problems with this. 

Firstly, if it is those who are being deported for crimes who are of concern, limit the act to them - otherwise the giving of that reason is false, misleading and, with regard to asylum seekers and refugees, quite possibly importune. 

I'll come back to that. 

The second concerns I have are those relating to human rights. I'm not going to detail those - plenty of others have already done so. 

My third concern is that the motivations are actually political (including attempting to prevent  public  knowledge of problems), not about criminality. This government has a history of picking on minorities, and their attitude towards asylum seekers and refugees has, in my opinion, been xenophobic, racist, and contrary to international law (particularly the international treaties that we have ratified).

My fourth concern is that I am gravely concerned that too many of those who would be administering this law are unfit to do so. 

I've had comments where those guards have claimed the detention is criminal, not administrative, and they have used that to justify abuses - active abuses, such as cavity searching asylum seekers before and after seeing doctors, and passive abuses such as failing to render proper and timely aid (see here and here on medical problems). There seems to be evidence that those hired for these duties are homophobic or transphobic (or utterly clueless about matters such as embarrassment about outing oneself after a lifetime of hiding to stay alive - see, for example, here) - and there has been evidence from the USA that people who are racist are likely to be homophobic - and, I would suggest, on the basis of my lived experience, transphobic and biphobic, and that the flow also goes the other way. 

I have long held concerns about outsourcing jails, the examples of misogynistic and abusive behaviour by guards in hotel quarantine has exacerbated that, and I think PNG had concerns about renewing the use of private security companies on Manus Island. 

In fact, let me be clear: I consider the border security-industrial complex in Australia as it currently exists, and has for some years, from Minister Dutton and down is evil - utter, absolute evil. 

Part of that evil is the view that abusing people seeking asylum - which is permissible under international law, including the treaties we have ratified - is justifiable, and the authoritarian  abuses that people drawn to imposing that authority can indulge themselves in. (Not all systems are like - see here, here, here, here, and here.) Part of that evil is also the seeming view that they are a law unto themselves, or above Australian law or proper accountability - and thus, in my opinion, the current bill about banning mobile phones from everyone, not only criminals. 

I've raised my concerns about this with my local MP, who voted against the proposal. It has, however, gone to the Senate, where the battle is continuing. 

One Senator has "outsourced" her decision by asking for feedback on the topic.  

I'm still considering whether or not I will provide feedback - on some matters I consider that Senator has done well, but I have grave concerns about her decisions on other matters, and I am not entirely convinced how open she is to all arguments on the topic. It is an interesting notion, and one that could be useful and admirable if done well. (Oddly, I'm also a little reluctant to comment as she is from another state.)

While I am thinking about this (writing about a topic helps me to clarify my views), I decided I would post my thoughts so my Australian readers can be aware of the opportunity, and make their own decision.

Please consider.