Jacqui Lambie rejects Dutton's claim most veterans would want medevac laws abolished

The independent senator Jacqui Lambie has rebuffed Peter Dutton’s claim that “the vast majority of veterans” would want her to abolish the medevac laws, as pressure mounts from all sides to secure her crucial swing vote.

As expected, a government-heavy Senate inquiry into the legislation recommended repealing the laws, which make it easier for doctors to recommend refugees and asylum seekers on Manus Island and Nauru be transported to Australia for medical treatment.

But Centre Alliance, the Greens and Labor members of the committee have all issued dissenting reports calling for the legislation to remain, saying the vast majority of evidence presented to the committee showed the laws saved lives.

Lambie holds the deciding vote in the deadlocked Senate, leading the home affairs minister to invoke her history as an army veteran in a public appeal to her on Thursday, claiming veterans would want the laws scrapped.

Speaking to Guardian Australia, Lambie disagreed with Dutton’s assessment.

Related: Mentally ill asylum seeker sent away from promised treatment on 5,400km Qantas round trip

“Most vets, or about 99.9% of them, are more concerned about the dysfunction of Veterans Affairs than what they are with medevac,” Lambie said.

“As a matter of fact, I spoke to one of the main service organisations yesterday, and somebody within that [who has] been in the game for a long time and he’s a veteran, he’s Gulf War and he’s East Timor, and he said ‘what’s this medevac stuff?’,” Lambie said.

“So I have to say, veterans rely on me to have a look at the national security side of it, but I’m certainly not getting phone calls about it, let’s put it that way.

“I’m getting hundreds of phone calls from people who want me to know that Veterans Affairs is more dysfunctional than ever. So I’d be more worried about that, if I was Dutton.”

Lambie said she would spend the weekend reading the committee’s findings, and continue to meet advocates from all sides, before deciding how she will cast her vote when the Senate reconvenes next month.

The government committee report listed what it said was a rash of problems with the laws, including “no process of return”, the time period the minister has to decide whether a transfer applicant was a security risk, “sovereignty issues” and the cost of the independent health advice panel, as some of the reasons the legislation should be scrapped.

“Of particular concern to the committee is the fact that the medical transfer provisions impose strictly limited grounds for refusal in relation to security and character concerns,” the committee’s official report read.

“The committee understands the minister has already been forced to approve the transfer of six individuals who were ‘of security or character concern’, because the concerns did not meet the strict grounds upon which the minister may refuse a transfer under the provisions.”

But MPs on opposition parties who sat on the committee said nothing was presented that swayed their view that medevac was working as intended.

“When the provisions were introduced, the government claimed that they were a green light to people smugglers and would result in a new surge of boat arrivals,” the Labor report said. “That has not happened.

“We argued that it was possible both to maintain rigorous border surveillance and security and to fulfil Australia’s obligation to provide full and appropriate medical care for people detained in Australian‑funded facilities.

“That is what the operation of the medevac law has demonstrated.

“These transfer provisions have shown that it is not necessary to resort to cruelty, the abuse of asylum seekers’ rights and the flouting of Australia’s international obligations in order to maintain a strict border protection regime.”

The Greens argued the government was putting “political imperatives ahead of people’s medical needs” in a “crass calculation that some lives are worth sacrificing for broader political outcomes, despite their legal and moral obligations”.

“This calculation should be intolerable in a liberal democracy like Australia,” the Greens report said. “Decisions about medical care should be made by medical experts, not politicians or bureaucrats.”

Centre Alliance, which played a crucial role in having the legislation passed, said the government and department did not put forward “sufficiently solid grounds for abolishing the Medevac laws”.

“The department argued that the narrow character grounds may not capture everyone of concern but witnesses countered that potential risks can be mitigated,” the party’s report said.

Related: Asylum seekers approved for medevac transfers detained in Port Moresby

“For instance, those transferred to Australia for medical treatment are detained while they are onshore, and the minister decides whether this is in the community or in a detention centre. As stated by the Law Council, ‘this means that any potential risk posed to the Australian community will be managed in practice’.”

But with a vote now just three or so weeks away, Scott Morrison has increased the pressure, telling Sydney radio host Ray Hadley the medevac laws had damaged Australia’s border protection.

The government reopened the Christmas Island detention centre when the legislation passed but then said it would close it, with no additional boats having arrived in Australian waters.

After claiming the government had lost the power to stop people judged as security risks from entering Australia for treatment under the legislation, Dutton used the law to deny a known criminal from entering Australia, on national security grounds.

But Morrison continued to insist the legislation remained a risk.

“There is this naivety that you can change the rules and they think it won’t have any impact – well of course it will,” he told radio 2GB. “The thing about border protection is you’ve got to be consistent, you’ve got to be clear and you’ve got to hold the line.

“The minute you show that you’re prepared to crack it, well, that’s when you start losing and Australia can’t afford to lose on border protection.”