Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the committee’s report, incorporating a dissenting report, additional comments and a minority report, entitled Immigration detention in Australia: community based alternatives to detention, together with the minutes of the proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

In presenting this second report of the committee into immigration detention in Australia I note that a majority of the committee are extremely pleased to note that the government has already taken steps to respond to the committee’s recommendations in its first report on immigration detention, which was tabled in December. Recommendation 18 of that report recommended that the government introduce legislation to waive all detention charges and debt. The government responded swiftly to that recommendation by introducing the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 in the Senate on 18 March.

The report we are considering now was completed before the Treasurer delivered the budget speech on 12 May, which decided to vote in favour of $14 million for the assisted voluntary return program, which encourages and facilitates those found not to meet the criteria for entry to Australia to return home. There is also more money for programs to assist those granted asylum to adjust. The committee acknowledges that this is one of many welcome changes to government policy on immigration detention; however, despite the changes to both policy and administrative culture in recent times, we must do better.

The committee has, therefore, chosen to focus this report on the conditions and material support for release into the community, including appropriate options for community based alternatives to secure detention. The report recognises that secure detention will continue to play an important role in our immigration system. It forms an integral part of our robust immigration system. However, co-located, open residential accommodation in the community can provide people with a safe environment whilst still being accessible to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and other service providers. Community based alternatives can also be much more cost-effective than the current high levels of physical security or on-site staffing required within immigration detention centres.

The committee’s first report explored the potential damage of long-term detention on people. The harsh psychological burden inflicted by long and indefinite periods of detention, as well as restrictions on income, work and health care for community based bridging visa holders, is known to have harmful effects on those involved. The report supports people who lawfully come to Australia, as well as those who have fled their native land seeking asylum, invests in case management and actively seeks an expected immigration outcome. That is why the committee has recommended that the Australian government reform the bridging visa framework to comprehensively support those released into the community, with appropriate reporting or surety requirements.

The committee recommends that the government utilise the reformed bridging visa framework in lieu of community detention until a person’s immigration status is resolved and review the cases of those currently on residence determinations. The committee has also recommended that there be improved transparency in immigration decision-making, improved access to legal advice and improved access to voluntary return counselling to help individuals decide what is going to be the best and most realistic outcome for them and their families.

The committee recognises that there are basic rights, such as access to appropriate health care and housing, that should be afforded to all people regardless of their immigration status. The committee recommends that the Australian government, where needed, provide basic income assistance that is means tested, access to necessary health care, assistance in sourcing appropriate temporary accommodation and community orientation information. In addition, it recommends that children be provided with safe and appropriate accommodation with their parents or guardians and basic necessities such as adequate food and primary and secondary schooling. Lastly, the committee is concerned that our reliance on the private rental market as an alternative to immigration detention facilities is inadequate and inefficient and is recommending that the Australian government have access to a stock of community based immigration housing.

I would like to express my appreciation to the hardworking members of the committee. I also note that, despite considerable effort to achieve consensus, a number of minority reports have been generated. Of particular note is the extraordinary diversity of opinion displayed by members of the opposition. The member for Murray, having supported the committee’s endorsement of Labor’s detention policy in December 2008, has now for reasons of political expediency, I would judge, refused to endorse this report and has written her own report. The other members of the opposition have, however, failed to follow the opposition spokesperson on immigration.

The deputy chair of the committee, the member for Hughes, has endorsed the report, and I thank her for that. The member for Kooyong has gone in another direction, tabling his own dissenting report, which I am sure he will speak about, that is poles apart from that of the shadow minister. Senator Fierravanti-Wells joined the committee late and failed to endorse the committee’s report or four dissenting reports. There were four opposition members and there are four positions! This report provides recommendations forming part of a framework which will maintain Australia’s border security while ensuring unauthorised arrivals and other immigrants are treated humanely.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have submitted a minority report to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration’s second report into future options for additional community based detention alternatives. The committee established three considerations to inform its assessment of community based detention alternatives. These considerations are that community based detention must ensure a humane, appropriate and supportive living environment for those awaiting resolution of their immigration status; that it should maintain a robust and enforceable immigration system that operates with integrity throughout arrival, assessment, resettlement or departure processes for unlawful noncitizens; and that the alternatives must be cost-effective and appropriate value for money.

These considerations informed my response to the inquiry, as well as the surging wave of unauthorised arrivals since the softening of government policy in August 2008. Since then we have seen 20 boats with over 782 asylum seekers on board. The recommendations made in this report would undoubtedly be seen as a further softening of this government’s response to people smugglers and their clients that would expose even more to injury and death. For this and other reasons I will explain I do not support the new bridging framework which is articulated in particular in recommendations 2, 3, 8 and 10 in the report. In my considered opinion the proposed new bridging visa framework does not comprehensively meet the agreed report considerations and criteria nor does it help to deter people smugglers from targeting Australia as a preferred destination.

Recommendations 2, 3 and 8 describe the majority of the committee’s view that unlawful noncitizens should be diverted out of detention before their security, health and identification status checks are completed. These ex-detainees would then be transferred into the community within a so-called bridging visa framework. The entitlements and support to accompany the bridging visas are described in recommendation 8. They include basic income assistance that is means tested, health care, sourcing temporary accommodation and basic furnishings, information about tenancy rights and responsibilities, and community orientation information.

Recommendation 10 proposes that these bridging visa holders would also have work rights. As unemployment continues to climb, it cannot be assured that asylum seekers can readily step into and keep employment. Looking for work with broken English, qualification recognition problems and no ability to indicate a long-term stay in the job would make it extremely difficult for someone to gain a job. Alternatively, placing the person on welfare could colour their future attitudes to finding work in Australia and earning an independent living in what will continue to be a very difficult economic climate.

As well, most detainees do not stay for long periods in secure detention and all detention centres have been upgraded or have been recently funded for further upgrades. The committee took evidence that, as at 1 May 2009, 47 per cent of stays in detention were for less than one month, with 72.1 per cent of the stays for periods of less than three months. Processing times for those in the most recent smuggling episodes are being shortened all the time.

We heard compelling evidence from a number of people who worked to support detainees released partway through their processing into the community that increased use of bridging visas without a substantially enhanced provision of support may result in some people being no better off or even worse off than in immigration detention. Given the severe reductions in staffing and funding now applying to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, including some 600 fewer staff since the 2008-09 budget, it is important that the remaining resources are not diverted from efficiently and swiftly finalising the identity, health and security status of individuals in detention. If detainees were consigned for a very long time to the grey no-man’s-land of a bridging visa with no swift resolution of their status, this would not represent an improvement on the current situation. The department’s support, oversight and monitoring of those on bridging visas, the surety requirements and the regular personal reporting requirements for those on bridging visas would be resource intensive and debilitating for those locked into this status limbo.

It is also more likely under the new framework proposal that every rejected asylum seeker claim would lead to an administrative, ministerial and judicial challenge to this decision—whatever was possible. If the detainee understood that their time—whether months or years—in the appeals process would be spent in the community with full work or income support and other rights, substantially more time would be wasted in dealing with vexatious claims, and money that would otherwise be committed to better settling refugees into our country would be diverted into dealing with these vexatious claims. (Time expired)

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Melbourne Ports wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.