This comes as the Senate is debating a bill that aims to strengthen Australia’s efforts to combat crimes related to illegal organ harvesting.
Nationals Senator Ross Cadell has called on his colleagues at the Australian Senate to support a bill aimed at preventing people around the world from having their organs harvested for what he described as an “Alibaba of organ database.”
During a debate in the upper house on Aug. 15, the senator voiced his support for the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which seems to strengthen Australia’s efforts in combating crimes related to illegal organ harvesting both domestically and internationally.
Under the legislation, people coming or returning to Australia by aeroplane or boat will be required to disclose on their arrival cards whether they have received an organ transplant in the past five years.
If so, they must provide details about the country, town, city, and medical facility where they received the transplant.
Additionally, the migration minister will be required to report the number of people who receive organ transplants to both houses of the parliament.
The bill also amends the Migration Act 1958 to automatically fail a person’s character test, leading to visa cancellation, if the minister reasonably suspects involvement in human organ trafficking.
Cadell argued that the bill would cost the government almost nothing but provide a “massive chance of improvement” for the lives of many people around the world.
“This won’t change the world overnight, but it is a step,” he told the Senate.
“And we need to take this step to stop this trade, to stop those incarcerated, being profiled, being tested, being harvested to create an Alibaba of organ database that you can buy on the net, that the rich and powerful can take their lives.”
Liberal Senator Dean Smith, who proposed the bill in 2023, emphasised its importance, highlighting Australia’s current lack of measures to combat organ trafficking.
He also noted that Australia failed behind other countries in tackling this type of crime.
“It [Australia] is silent in supporting global efforts to better disrupt and ideally eliminate from the globe that most heinous of crimes,” he said.
“This bill seeks to advance Australia’s mission to uphold and enhance human rights, both here and around the world.”
While currently still in the debate stage, Smith is pushing for a vote on the bill before Christmas.
Evidence of Organ Harvesting in China
Senator Paul Scarr, who also supported the bill, raised the alarm about the gravity of the situation in China.
He said UN human rights experts received credible reports that minority groups, such as Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Muslims, and Christians, were being forcibly subjected to blood tests and organ examinations without their consent in China.
“The results of the examinations are reportedly registered in a database of living organ sources that facilitates organ allocation,” Scarr said, citing a United Nations (UN) press release in June 2021.
“Forced organ harvesting in China appears to be targeting specific ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities held in detention, often without being explained.
“According to the allegations received, the most common organs removed from the prisoners are reportedly hearts, kidneys, livers, corneas, and less commonly, parts of livers.”
Scarr also said it was alleged that the practice of organ harvesting involved health sector professionals, including surgeons, anesthetists, and other medical specialists.
Labour Says It Does Not Support the Bill
Labor Senator Raff Ciccone, representing the government, stated that Labor could not support the bill due to “a range of issues and challenges” that could undermine its effectiveness.
Firstly, Ciccone argued that the self-declaration process might lead to inaccurate data, as individuals involved in organ trafficking are likely to obfuscate the truth.
Citing testimony from the human rights group Anti Slavery Australia during a senate inquiry, the senator said that people entering Australia would be unlikely to honestly answer the disclosure question when there was a potential for them to be investigated for a crime.
Ciccone also raised concerns about the collection of personal medical information, suggesting it might be best collected by medical professionals in a clinical setting to ensure accuracy and protect patients’ health privacy.
Furthermore, he stated that current laws already empower the migration minister and departmental delegates with a range of cancellation powers to deal with visa holders who have character concerns.
“The Department of Home Affairs also stated during the inquiry that a person who has either facilitated organ trafficking or participated in organ tourism as a recipient of a trafficked organ will be captured by the existing broad cancellation powers in the migration act,” Ciccone said.
Moral Obligation to Raise Human Rights Issues
In response to Ciccone’s remarks, Senator Scarr said Australia had a moral obligation to raise matters of human rights abuses worldwide.
“While some of the topics which are discussed may cause discomfort to some, I think the moral obligation to raise these issues trump those concerns,” he said.
While Scarr acknowledged Ciccone’s concern that passengers coming to Australia may not disclose the information honestly, he said it was still worth doing it.
“That could well be the people don’t declare appropriately on their incoming passenger card,” he said.
“But to the extent people do declare, … then the government will have the benefit of the data which is thereby collected.”
Regarding medical information privacy, Scarr said Ciccone’s concern was valid. However, he noted that there were measures in the bill to protect the privacy of information and make sure it is anonymised.
Senator Scarr also explained that the bill would require people to declare whether they had received an organ or benefited from a medical procedure on their incoming passenger card.
“If they don’t do that, it’s an added point of pressure which can be used to analyse whether or not their visa or entry to Australia should be prevented on character grounds,” he said.