Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Immigration detention in Australia: community-based alternatives to detention, together with the Hansard record of proceedings, minutes of proceedings and submissions received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Just over 12 months ago the Joint Standing Committee on Migration began an inquiry into the state of immigration detention in Australia. At the beginning of December last year, the committee tabled its first report entitled Immigration detention in Australia: a new beginning: criteria for release from detention. I am very pleased to table in the Senate today the second report on behalf of the committee, Immigration detention in Australia: community-based alternatives to detention. I note that it is a very appropriate week to be tabling such report because it is Refugee Week in Australia.

The first report by the committee made 18 recommendations that were aimed at improving accountability and ensuring a timely release from detention centres following health, security and identity checks. It gives me great pleasure to note that the government has already acted on some of those recommendations from the first report, particularly with the introduction of the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. That bill seeks to remove the liability of detention costs for detainees and also to extinguish all outstanding immigration detention debts.

The second report of the committee addresses the options available for community based alternatives to detention centres. It focuses on the conditions and material support required for a successful release into the community. Drawing on evidence from submissions, as well as looking at international approaches to immigration detention, the committee’s second report makes 12 recommendations. Those recommendations are made in the context of the government’s commitment to immigration detention reform as announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, through the seven values that will underpin the future of immigration detention within Australia. The recommendations from this report build on those immigration detention values. The recommendations in the second report seek to uphold the security and safety of Australia’s people and its borders whilst taking a humane approach to people that arrive in Australia seeking our protection.

One of the key recommendations in the report is that the government utilise a reform bridging visa framework in lieu of community detention until a person’s immigration status is resolved. This recommendation—recommendation 2 in the report—proposes that community detention be discontinued and those people assessed as suitable for release from detention centres be granted bridging visas until either their departure or resolution of their case. That recommendation is consistent with the department’s practice of issuing bridging visas in preference over placing a person into immigration detention as well as with the fifth key immigration detention value that states that:

Detention in immigration detention centres is only to be used as a last resort and for the shortest practicable time.

However, in the shift to maximising community based alternatives to detention, the committee recognises the need for change and greater consistency in conditions applying to bridging visas. Subsequently, recommendation 1 of the report advocates for reform to the current bridging visa framework to comprehensively support those released into the community with the appropriate reporting or surety requirements.

The committee believes that there is an inadequate provision of services available to bridging visa holders. Evidence received by the committee through submissions and public hearings suggested that people can be granted but also lose access to health care or permission to work at different stages of the immigration process. The inconsistencies in the rules are not at all fair to families or individuals going through the process of having their immigration status resloved. It is anticipated that if the government adopts the first recommendation of this report individuals and families would be subject to less stress and strain whilst they undergo that assessment process. If there is an increase in the use of bridging visas without reform to the framework, it is the case that some people may be no better off or indeed could be worse off than if they were put into immigration detention. The aspects of bridging visa conditions is certainly something that the committee felt needed to be sorted out sooner rather than later.

Further recommendations in this report are focused on ensuring that migrants have access to humane and appropriate living environments whilst they await the outcome of their immigration status. The committee has considered maintaining an enforceable immigration system for Australia whilst providing affordable options for the Australian taxpayer in this context.

For the information of the senator, as at the beginning of last month—that is, May 2009—there were 84 children aged less than 18 years being held in immigration detention: 27 of those children were detained in the community under residence determinations, 52 were in alternative temporary detention in the community and five were in transitional immigration residential housing. With the committee’s aim to get all immigrant detainees out into community based alternatives to detention as soon as possible, recommendation 9 focused in particular on the welfare of those children. The committee has suggested that the government commits to ensuring that children living in the Australian community have access to safe and appropriate accommodation with their parents or guardians—as well as the provision of basic necessities such as adequate food, necessary health care, and, importantly, primary and secondary education for as long as it takes whilst their or their guardians’ immigration status is being resolved.

It is unacceptable that children, regardless of their citizenship or migration status, can be living in our community in preventable poverty. Immigrant families with children in particular have special vulnerabilities, and therefore it has already been a priority of the Australian government, I am very pleased to say, in recent years to remove children, together with their families, from immigration detention centres. With the recommendation in this second report the committee is making an additional proposal to safeguard the rights and interests of children living in our community, regardless of their immigration status. The committee also notes the need to make sure that the states and territories are sufficiently funded to meet these obligations.

In line with the recommendations of the first report, the committee has concluded that there are opportunities to improve accountability and transparency in the department’s decisions about who is eligible for release from immigration detention into the community and the subsequent conditions that will apply to that release. Recommendation 4 from the report proposes that, for any case where a person held in some form of immigration detention is refused a bridging visa, the government require that clear and detailed reasons in writing are provided to the person being detained; and also that the person has a reasonable time limit of up to 21 days in which to seek merit review of any refusal.

Finally, the other remaining recommendations from this report cover access to income, health care and housing, conditions for permission to work and community based immigration housing availability. These recommendations all build on Australia’s immigration detention values and strike a fair balance between maintaining the integrity of our immigration system and protecting the welfare of those who seek refuge here. Additionally, I would like to add that the recommendations made in this second report maintain the standards expected of us by the international community, further reflecting the values outlined by the UN refugee convention, of which Australia is a signatory.

The committee is determined in this report to ensure that our immigration system treats all people, no matter what their immigration status may be, in a humane and compassionate way whilst maintaining the security and protection of our nation. The findings of this second report will assist the government to continue to achieve a fair and equitable balance between those two things. I am pleased to say that the committee’s third and final report of the inquiry into immigration detention can be expected later this year. I would like to conclude by thanking all of the witnesses, the departmental officials, the committee secretariat, and the senators and members on the joint committee who contributed to this report.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Joint Standing Committee on Migration is undertaking a broad-ranging inquiry into the integrity of our immigration detention system. The aim of that inquiry is to look constructively to the future and to build a rational and humane immigration detention system, aligning Australia with our obligations under international laws and conventions to which we are a party. I would like to note that this week, 14 June to 20 June, is Refugee Week and that communities across Australia will celebrate their new lives free from fear and persecution. Since November 2007 the Rudd government has moved towards a new policy direction concerning the mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals.

Mandatory detention has been the subject of vigorous debate over many years and ignites great passion in both its supporters and detractors. It is typically viewed by some as a necessary part of maintaining the integrity of Australia’s immigration system and protecting our borders, and by those on the other side of the debate as contrary to the spirit of international refugee law, inhumane and largely ineffective in curbing unauthorised arrivals. Many others argue that the policy has shamed Australia internationally, and that prolonged detention has been psychologically damaging to those in detention, lacking in compassion and unnecessary punitive.

Released last December, the committee’s first report covered the first two terms of reference of the inquiry. They were the criteria that should be applied in determining how long a person should be held in immigration detention and the criteria that should be applied in determining when a person should be released from immigration detention following health and security checks. The committee members achieved a very high level of agreement with this first report, even though a dissenting report was submitted by the member for Kooyong, Senator Alan Eggleston and Senator Sarah Hanson-Young arguing that the government should go further and calling for broader access to judicial review of detention. Overall, though, the committee endorsed the direction that the Rudd government had taken on these issues. In fact recommendation 12 of that report unambiguously supported the Rudd government’s approach to immigration detention reform.

Recommendation 18 of that first report recommended that legislation be introduced to waive all detention charges and debt. The Rudd government quickly responded to that recommendation and introduced the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 into the Senate on 18 March. In the Treasurer’s budget speech on 12 May, $14 million was allocated to assist voluntary return for those people found not to meet the criteria for entry to Australia, and funds to help assist people granted asylum to adjust were also allocated. These are welcome changes to the government’s policies on immigration detention and take up recommendations of the second report. Indeed this second report considers community based alternatives to detention and examines the conditions and support for release into the community, including appropriate options for community based alternatives to secure detention. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration’s second report inquired into the international experience, considered the manner in which such alternatives may be utilised in Australia to broaden the options available within the current immigration detention framework, and evaluated the cost effectiveness of these alternatives to current options.

In our second report we looked into the practicality of releasing people from immigration detention into the community. The committee drew on evidence received in written and oral submissions, by visiting asylum centres and organisations who deal directly with refugees, by talking directly with refugees and by listening to their personal stories. The recommendations we have made take a humane approach to those people who seek protection and, as such, 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.

There are basic rights such as housing and access to health care that all people should have, regardless of their immigration status. We recommend that, where needed, the government provide basic income assistance, access to health care, support and assistance in finding appropriate accommodation and support with appropriate community orientation, and of course all children should be provided with the basic necessities of adequate food and shelter, along with access to education. Safe and appropriate accommodation with parents and/or guardians is very important, and the committee recommends that the Australian government have a stock of community based housing, as access to the private rental market is often difficult to obtain. I reiterate: such recommendations are about basic rights—to health care, housing, education and income. Such recommendations will build on the new immigration detention values and help us meet our obligations to people coming to Australia but will also still protect the Australian community.

It is both unfortunate and disappointing that the committee was unable to adopt a bipartisan approach to the committee’s second report, with the four Liberals unfortunately taking four different viewpoints. What those opposite really stand for is anyone’s guess. Having supported the government’s reform in December, political game playing has again come to the fore, with the opposition spokesperson happy to kick the immigration issue around. The only problem is that the team she is playing on is not aware they are a team. In the game of political expediency, they are all over the ground in backing away from the committee’s recommendations.

They did not oppose the closure of the Pacific solution in December 2007, after we came to government, and they did not oppose us in August last year when we introduced recommendations to abolish temporary protection visas. But now the coalition has a problem with Labor’s reforms. Now, without any proof whatsoever, the opposition spokesperson claims that the changes they supported are encouraging asylum seekers. I have read some of the opposition spokesperson’s claims. It is a complete misrepresentation to state that the committee recommends the release of asylum seekers prior to health, identity and security checks. This is not the case and is not the intent of the report. ‘Immigration status’ refers to whether a person meets the refugee or asylum seeker criteria, not whether an individual’s health, security and identity checks have been determined.

The committee clearly recommended that there was no need for community detention. Following the health, identity and risk assessments outlined in the first report, a person should be released into the community. Residential accommodation in the community gives people a safe environment in which to live, work or go to school while still being accessible to departmental staff and other service providers as required. It reduces the psychological burden brought on by long and indefinite periods of detention, of which we heard much evidence. Surely this is an appropriate and humane process, allowing people a reasonable quality of life until the determinations on their applications are made. No evidence I saw made me believe that this was not the appropriate way to move.

In closing, I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to the hardworking and extremely patient secretariat staff; the committee chair, Mr Michael Danby; the deputy chair, Mrs Danna Vale; and the other senators and members on the committee. I commend the report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.