Preliminary Pages
Foreword
This is the second report of the Joint Standing Committee on
Migration’s inquiry into immigration detention in Australia.
The first report of the Committee, tabled in December 2008,
made a number of recommendations that were aimed at improving accountability
and ensuring that release from detention centres followed health, security and
identity checks. It also recommended:
n the
increased use of bridging visas to enable the release of people into the
community, subject to appropriate criteria to manage risks to the community and
to our immigration system, and
n that
all detention charges and debt should be waived immediately.
The Committee is extremely pleased to note that the
Government has already taken steps to respond to the Committee’s
recommendations from the first report. In particular, the introduction of the
Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 into the Senate on 18
March 2009 which seeks to amend the Migration Act to remove the liability for
detention and related costs for certain persons and liable third parties and
extinguishes all outstanding immigration detention debt.
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 to administrative culture in recent times, we can
and 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.
Australia has been developing
alternatives to immigration detention centres since 2001, in particular through
the establishment of the community detention program and the Community Care
Pilot. The Committee draws on this experience, as well as the experience of
different models internationally, to set out the key features of a future
framework for community release.
In examining the options for community-based alternatives to
detention, the Committee has drawn on the immigration detention values
announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in July 2008. In
particular, the report builds on the Minister’s commitment that detention
within an immigration detention centre is only to be used as a last resort and
for the shortest practicable time.
Drawing on these values, and on the evidence received, the
Committee has a made a series of recommendations with three principles in mind.
That is, detention alternatives must:
n ensure a humane,
appropriate and supported living environment for those awaiting resolution of
their immigration status
n maintain a robust and
enforceable immigration system that operates with integrity throughout arrival,
assessment, resettlement or departure processes for unlawful non-citizens, and
n be cost-effective and
provide value for money for the Australian taxpayer.
These principles reflect our obligations to people coming to
Australia and the expectations of the international community of which we are
an integral part. They also reflect the expectations of the Australian
community of a humane, orderly, and well-managed immigration system that
continues to enrich our society.
The Committee has acknowledged that secure detention will
continue to play an important role in our immigration system. The evidence
suggests however, that it is not necessary to keep people who meet the criteria
for release in secure detention centres for long periods of time awaiting
resolution of their immigration status. Co‑located, open residential
accommodation in the community can provide people with safe and supportive
living environments while 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 an immigration
detention centre.
A more supportive living
environment maintains the physical and mental well being of those awaiting an
immigration decision, which can therefore facilitate a smoother transition into
the Australian community where there is a positive outcome or repatriation.
In addition, the harsh psychological burdens 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 long term effects on all those involved.
A new approach is needed: one that supports people who
lawfully come to Australia; invests in case management; and actively seeks an
expected immigration outcome.
That is why the Committee has recommended that the
Australian Government:
n reform the bridging
visa framework to comprehensively support those released into the community,
with appropriate reporting or surety requirements
n utilise the reformed
bridging visa framework in lieu of community detention until a person’s
immigration status is resolved, and
n review the cases of
those currently on residence determinations, known as community detention, with
a view to granting a reformed bridging visa until their immigration status is
resolved, ensuring that there is a continuation of services and support
currently available to those individuals.
The Committee has also recommended that there should be
improved transparency in immigration decision-making, improved access to legal
advice, and improved access to voluntary return counselling in order to support
the provision of information to the client and to help them decide what is
going to be the best and most realistic outcome for themselves and their
families.
The Committee recognises that there are basic rights, such
as access to appropriate health care, housing and income that should be
afforded to all people regardless of their immigration status. The Committee
has therefore recommended that the Australian Government ensure that people are
provided with, where needed:
n basic income
assistance that is means-tested
n access to necessary
health care
n assistance in
sourcing appropriate temporary accommodation and basic furnishing needs
n and community
orientation information, and in addition that children, in particular, are
provided with
§
safe and appropriate accommodation with their parent(s) or
guardian(s)
§
the provision of basic necessities such as adequate food
§
primary and secondary schooling.
Where case resolution is ongoing the Committee recommends
that the Government reform the bridging visa framework to grant people
permission to work.
Lastly, the Committee is concerned that a reliance on the
private rental market as an alternative to immigration detention facilities is
inadequate and inefficient and is recommending that that the Australian
Government have access to a stock of furnished community-based immigration
housing.
I would like to express my appreciation for my hard working
colleagues on the Committee who are committed to ensuring that our immigration
system treats all people, regardless of their status, in a humane and
compassionate manner, while protecting Australia’s borders and ensuring a
robust and fair immigration system.
Mr Michael
Danby MP
Chair
Membership of the Committee
Chair
|
Mr Michael Danby MP
|
|
Deputy
Chair
|
Hon Danna Vale MP
|
|
Members
|
Senator Andrew Bartlett (to 30 June 2008)
Senator Catryna Bilyk (from 1 July 2008)
Ms Yvette D’Ath MP
Senator Alan Eggleston (to 4 February 2009)
Senator Concetta
Fierravanti-Wells (from 4 February 2009)
Mr Petro Georgiou MP
Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (from 27 August 2008)
Senator Anne McEwen
Mr Don Randall MP (to 10 November 2008)
Hon Dr Sharman Stone MP (from 10 November 2008)
Mr Tony Zappia MP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Committee secretariat
Secretary
|
Dr Anna Dacre
|
Inquiry
Secretary
|
Ms Anna Engwerda-Smith (to
May 2009)
|
Senior
Research Officer
|
Mr Paul Zinkel (from May
2009)
Mr Steffan Tissa
|
Office
Manager
|
Ms Melita Caulfield
|
Administrative
Officer
|
Ms Claire Young
|
Terms of reference
The Joint Standing Committee on Migration
is inquiring into immigration detention in Australia. The Committee will
examine:
n
the criteria that should be applied in determining how long a
person should be held in immigration detention
n the criteria that
should be applied in determining when a person should be released from
immigration detention following health and security checks
n options to expand the
transparency and visibility of immigration detention centres
n the preferred
infrastructure options for contemporary immigration detention
n options
for the provision of detention services and detention health services across
the range of current detention facilities, including Immigration Detention
Centres, Immigration Residential Housing, Immigration Transit Accommodation and
community detention
n options for
additional community-based alternatives to immigration detention by
a) inquiring
into international experience
b) considering
the manner in which such alternatives may be utilised in Australia to broaden the options available within the current immigration detention
framework
c) comparing
the cost effectiveness of these alternatives with current options.
(5 June 2008)
List of abbreviations
AAT
|
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
|
AHRC
|
Australian Human Rights
Commission
|
AIC
|
Australian Institute of
Criminology
|
ASAS
|
Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme
|
ASRC
|
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
|
AVR
|
Assisted Voluntary Return
|
BV
|
Bridging Visa
|
CCP
|
Community Care Pilot
|
Chilout
|
Children
Out of Detention
|
CSRS
|
Community
Status Resolution Service
|
DeHAG
|
Detention
Health Advisory Group
|
DIAC
|
Department of Immigration and
Citizenship
|
ESR
|
Enhanced Supervision/Reporting
|
EU
|
European Union
|
FASSTT
|
Forum of Australian Services for
Survivors of Torture and Trauma
|
FOI
|
Freedom of Information
|
G4S
|
Group 4 Securitor
|
GPS
|
Global Positioning System
|
GSL
|
Global Solutions Limited
|
IAAAS
|
Immigration Advice and
Application Assistance Scheme
|
ICE
|
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (United States
Government Agency)
|
IDAG
|
Immigration Detention Advisory
Group
|
IDC
|
Immigration Detention Centre
|
IHMS
|
International Health and Medical
Services
|
IOM
|
International Organisation for
Migration
|
IRH
|
Immigration Residential Housing
|
ISAP
|
Intensive Supervision Appearance
Program
|
ITA
|
Immigration Transit Accommodation
|
MATCH
|
Metropolitan Association Towards
Community Housing
|
MRT
|
Migration Review Tribunal
|
MSI
|
Migration Series Instructions
|
NASAVic
|
Network of Asylum Seeker Agencies Victoria
|
NGO
|
Non Government Organisation
|
NLA
|
National Legal Aid
|
PAM
|
Procedures Advice Manual
|
PBS
|
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
|
RAILS
|
Refugee and Immigration Legal
Service
|
RILC
|
Refugee and Immigration Legal
Centre
|
RRT
|
Refugee Review Tribunal
|
STARTTS
|
NSW
Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors
|
THV
|
Temporary Humanitarian Visa
|
TPV
|
Temporary Protection Visa
|
UNHCR
|
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
|
List of recommendations
Recommendation 1
Given that the current bridging visa structure is shown to be
complex and restrictive, the Committee recommends that the Australian
Government reform the bridging visa framework to comprehensively support those
released into the community, with appropriate reporting or surety requirements.
In reforming the bridging visa framework, specific
consideration should be given to health, security and identity checks and risk
assessments in accordance with the recommendations outlined by the Committee in
its first report Criteria for release from detention.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government
utilise the reformed bridging visa framework in lieu of community detention
until a person’s immigration status is resolved.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review
the cases of those currently on residence determinations, known as community
detention, with a view to granting a reformed bridging visa until their
immigration status is resolved, ensuring that there is a continuation of
services and support currently available to those individuals.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that,
for any case where a person held in some form of immigration detention is
refused a bridging visa, the Australian Government require that:
n clear
and detailed reasons in writing are provided to the person being detained, and
that
n the
person has a reasonable time limit, up to 21 days, in which to seek merits
review of that refusal, commensurate with those that apply to visa applicants
in the community.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government
provide means-tested access to independent migration counselling and migration
legal advice to all people in immigration detention and to those living in the
community on bridging visas.
In order to facilitate means-tested access to independent
migration counselling, the Committee recommends that the Australian Government
increase the scope of the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme
and review the current eligibility criteria to make assistance under this
scheme available to all people in immigration detention and to those living in
the community on bridging visas.
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government:
provide
indicative processing times and criteria for the ministerial discretion
provisions under the Migration Act 1958 in order to avoid
prolonged uncertainty for people, and
provide
reasons for ministerial decisions in order to improve transparency and
discourage repeat requests for ministerial intervention.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government
establish a voluntary repatriation program, similar to that run by the
International Organisation for Migration through the Community Care Pilot,
which can be accessed by all people whether in detention or released on a
bridging visa.
Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends that
the Australian Government reform the bridging visa framework to ensure that
people are provided with the following where needed:
n basic
income assistance that is means-tested
n access
to necessary health care
assistance
in sourcing appropriate temporary accommodation and basic furnishing needs, and
provision of information about tenancy rights and responsibilities and
Australian household management, where applicable, and
community
orientation information, translated into appropriate languages, providing
practical and appropriate information for living in the Australian community,
such as the banking system, public transport and police and emergency contact
numbers.
Recommendation 9
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government commit
to ensuring that children living in the Australian community, while their or
their guardian’s immigration status is being resolved, have access to:
safe
and appropriate accommodation with their parent(s) or guardian(s)
the provision
of basic necessities such as adequate food
necessary
health care, and
primary
and secondary schooling.
Recommendation 10
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government reform
the bridging visa framework to grant all adults on bridging visas permission to
work, conditional on compliance with reporting requirements and attendance at
review and court hearings.
Recommendation 11
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government
provide that, where permission to work on a bridging visa is granted, this
permission should continue irrespective of whether a person has applied for a
merits, judicial or ministerial review.
Recommendation 12
The Committee recommends that
the Australian Government have access to a stock of furnished community-based
immigration housing which:
n should
consist of open hostel-style accommodation complexes and co-located housing
units.
n should
be available to people and families on bridging visas who do not have the means
to independently organise for their housing needs in the community, and
n where
rent should be determined on a means-tested basis.