7.1
Part of the terms of reference for this inquiry asked the Committee to:
… give particular consideration to social engagement of youth migrants, including involvement of youth migrants in anti-social behaviour such as gang activity, and the adequacy of the Migration Act 1958 character test provisions as a means to address issues arising from this behaviour.
7.2
This focus was due to an increase in gang activity involving youth who were committing a number of violent crimes including aggravated burglary and assault as well as various drug offences, particularly in Victoria.
7.3
This Chapter provides some factual background information on the proportion of humanitarian entrants under the age of 18. Background information on Australia’s overall Humanitarian Program including statistics on the number of visas granted and an overview of migrant settlement services administered at the Commonwealth, State and local levels can be found in Chapter 2.
Young people from migrant and refugee backgrounds
7.4
Migrants under the age of 18 comprise a significant proportion of refugees and humanitarian entrants that arrive in Australia. Between 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2015, over 27 per cent of migrants under the humanitarian stream were under the age of 18. More recently, that number increased to 44 per cent (between 1 October 2015 to 4 October 2016).
7.5
The proportion of females to males is relatively equal with 2,968 females between zero and seventeen granted a visa offshore compared to 3,264 males.
7.6
In comparison, 13 per cent of family stream visa holders and 20 per cent of skilled stream visa holders were under the age of 18 for the same period. The Department of Social Services (DSS) noted that a ‘higher proportion of humanitarian entrants are children (aged 17 or younger) compared to family and skilled stream arrivals.’
Table 7.1: Age of Permanent Settlers (All Streams)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
00-05
|
3,705
|
4,432
|
20,704
|
28,841
|
11.3%
|
|
06-11
|
2,599
|
3,078
|
6,567
|
12,244
|
4.8%
|
|
12-15
|
1,407
|
2,501
|
2,517
|
6,425
|
2.5%
|
|
16-17
|
703
|
1,674
|
866
|
3,243
|
1.3%
|
|
18-24
|
2,178
|
18,516
|
34,591
|
55,285
|
21.7%
|
|
25-34
|
3,179
|
36,293
|
62,587
|
102,059
|
40.1%
|
|
35-44
|
2,506
|
9,197
|
15,110
|
26,813
|
10.5%
|
|
45-54
|
1,496
|
5,561
|
2,687
|
9,744
|
3.8%
|
|
55-64
|
781
|
5,646
|
330
|
6,757
|
2.7%
|
|
65+
|
526
|
2,374
|
72
|
2,972
|
1.2%
|
|
Grand Total
|
19,080
|
89,272
|
146,031
|
254,383
|
100%
|
Source: Department of Social Services, Settlement Report, 1 October 2015 to 4 October 2016
7.7
Young people from migrant or refugee backgrounds have faced a number of traumatic experiences prior to arriving in Australia irrespective of whether they have arrived through the off-shore or on-shore migration pathways.
7.8
Asylum seekers who have travelled to Australia through the off-shore pathway may have been forced to flee their country of origin because of war or persecution, often travelling long distances; may have lived in unsafe environments in different countries for significant periods of time and been exposed to violence; have limited access to services such as health care, education, employment, safe or secure housing; and arrived in Australia with or without immediate or extended family.
7.9
Young migrants who have travelled to Australia through the on-shore pathway face uncertainty regarding their future and may have spent time either in Australian detention facilities, community detention or an off-shore processing centre; hold a temporary visas; and await the outcome of their application for protection.
7.10
The experience young people seeking asylum in Australia is highly stressful, filled with uncertainty and can pose a significant impact on a young person’s physical and mental health and wellbeing. This in turn adds considerable complexity to the settlement process.
7.11
The Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network (MYAN) Australia highlighted that the settlement process for young people is vastly different from adults noting that they faced a number of issues including:
… learning a new language, adjusting to a new culture and education system (often with disrupted or limited schooling prior to Australia); finding work and establishing themselves in the Australian workforce; negotiating family relationships in the context of (new concepts of) independence, freedom and child and youth rights; negotiating cultural identity and expectations from family and community; and establishing new peer relationships.
7.12
MYAN also noted that there were numerous barriers that inhibit young migrants from accessing services including:
… language, culture, limited social and cultural capital (including unfamiliarity with the service system), age, gender, racism and discrimination and a lack of culturally responsive practice from service providers.
7.13
The traumatic experiences of young migrants, coupled with the barriers some face accessing settlement and mainstream services and other complex factors, make these individuals some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
7.14
These societal drivers can lead to disengagement, alienation and marginalisation and can leave migrant youth exposed being exploited by unscrupulous criminal elements and engaging in criminal activities.
Possible factors leading to involvement in crime and gangs
7.15
Various submitters commented that there may be a number of contributing factors that may lead to migrant youth disengaging from society and getting involved in anti-social behaviour including unemployment, loss of identity, boredom, racism and marginalisation.
7.16
Mr Jafri Katagar, who appeared at a public hearing in a private capacity, was of the view that unemployed, socially alienated, marginalised migrant youth are vulnerable and may consider joining a gang:
Being unemployed, socially alienated and marginalised in the society, you drop out to live a low-productive life, a life of suffering and poverty where many people become vulnerable and exposed to dangers. As a result of all this, you find many young migrants who have lost hope or a sense of direction in this society, with some ending up on the streets, in gangs or committing crime. Being unemployed, socially alienated and marginalised in society, many young migrants have become idle or bored. They do not have anything to do, so they start to hang out in groups. And it is from these groups where some end up on the streets, becoming gangs and committing crime. You have heard of the Apex gangs who are now terrorising people across Melbourne.
7.17
The Youth Affairs Council of WA (YACWA), the Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network of WA (MYAN WA), and the Victorian Foundation of Survivors of Torture (Foundation House) were all of the view that the involvement of young people in criminal conduct is more likely a reflection of a wider incidence of disengagement and social marginalisation. Foundation House added:
Evidence in the public domain suggests that only a relatively small number of young people born overseas are involved with gangs that commit serious criminal offences. They are a relatively small cohort of young people born overseas in general and of young people born in any particular country, though some countries of origin are disproportionately represented.
7.18
Migration agent, Ms Catherine Burnett-Wake, believed that a loss of identity and boredom lead to gang involvement:
Identity is one of the main issues that the parents, especially, tell me that their children have. The parents are worried about their children. What they have told me is that their children basically feel a loss of identity. They are not blending in with the community. They become bored, and then they might get involved with subculture groups like Apex and so forth.
7.19
The Migration and Refugee Research Network (MRRN) highlighted recent research examining the possible reasons as to why migrant youth participate in anti-social behaviour:
Participants in recent research (Summers 2015) said that disengagement from school, unemployment and racism can lead to young people from refugee backgrounds seeing themselves as not belonging in Australian society, which at times contributes to anti-social behaviour. Previous Australian research (Collins, Noble, Poynting & Tabar 2001) likewise found that the marginalisation of young people contributed to group formation.
7.20
Mercy Community Services SEQ Ltd (MCS) suggested that underemployment and unemployment played a role in the pathway to gang memberships and the Armidale Regional Council suggested that disenchanted and alienated youth may consider joining a gang.
7.21
Central America Refugee Australia (CARA) was of the opinion that youth migrants from 5 to 25 years of age were ‘at the highest risk of gang recruitment.’ They added that ‘the lack of family reunion options helps other individuals such as gang and youth extremist followers exploit youth migrants.’
7.22
The Fairfield City Council (FCC) agreed with the above view that migrant youth were vulnerable to exploitation by criminal elements:
Newly arrived migrant and refugee youth are particularly vulnerable to being drawn into anti-social or criminal activities due to a number of factors. They are separated from extended family and friends and are attempting to rebuild new social networks and create a sense of belonging.
7.23
The Humanitarian Group highlighted comments from the Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW that poverty and marginalisation appeared to be important factors leading to gang involvement:
… gang conflict tends to be of a ‘territorial’ rather than a ‘racial’ nature, and that participation in such gangs tends to be no different for ethnic minority youth than for Australian youth. The more important influences would appear to be poverty and marginalisation.
7.24
NSW Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors (STARTTS) and Harris Wake Pty Ltd called for greater research into ‘why youth migrants join gangs and participate in anti-social behaviour’, particularly in low socio-economic areas.
Youth Crime
7.25
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) report, Recorded Crime - Offenders, 2015-16, provides statistics on offenders aged 10–17 years who were formally charged by police during the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.
7.26
The report noted for that period that youth offenders comprised 13 per cent of the total offender population and the number of youth offenders increased by less than one per cent to a total of 54,974 offenders.
7.27
Theft was the principal offence committed by youth offenders, comprising of 35 per cent of all youth offenders, followed by acts intended to cause injury (15 per cent) and illicit drug offences (11 per cent).
7.28
The report provides a breakdown on the number of offenders in each State and Territory including the most common principal offences, stating that:
There were 128,397 offenders in New South Wales (an increase of three per cent): with the most common offences being theft, acts to cause injury, public order and illicit drug offences.
There were 77,770 offenders in Victoria (a decrease of four per cent): with the most common offences being acts to cause injury, unlawful entry, theft and illicit drug offences.
There were 100,539 offenders in Queensland (a decrease of one per cent): with the most common offences being illicit drug offences, public order offences, theft and offences against justice.
There were 2,254 offenders in South Australia (an increase of 5 per cent): with the most common offences being illicit drug offences, public order offences and theft.
There were 1,322 offenders in Western Australia (an increase of one per cent): with the most common offences being acts to cause injury, illicit drug offences and public order offences.
There were 10,842 offenders in Tasmania (an increase of one per cent): with the most common offences being acts to cause injury, theft, and illicit drug offences.
There were 279 offenders in Tasmania (an increase of two per cent): with the most common offences being acts to cause injury, illicit drug offences, public order offences and offences against justice.
There were 2,867 offenders in Australian Capital Territory (an increase of five per cent): with the most common offences being acts to cause injury, public order offences, illicit drug offences and theft.
7.29
The evidence received by the Committee primarily focussed on youth crime in Victoria. The Committee did not receive any evidence on youth crime from any other jurisdiction.
7.30
An approach was made to a range of victims of these crimes to participate in the inquiry. None of those approached were able to appear at a hearing for various personal reasons but it is possible that they may have made a submission to the inquiry.
7.31
The following section provides an overview of the communities’ views on youth crime in Victoria, the possible involvement of migrant youth and the possible drivers leading to involvement in such activities.
Victoria
7.32
In the past 18 months there have been numerous media reports of violent gang activity around Victoria, culminating in March 2017 when hundreds of youth from rival gangs Apex and Islander 23 rioted in Melbourne’s CBD.
7.33
The Committee received evidence on the alleged involvement of youth migrants in anti-social behaviour from a number of submitters and at public hearings. Submitters’ views were wide ranging with some describing gang criminal activities as an epidemic while others did not concur.
7.34
Media commentary notes the serious impact of youth crime on Victorian population with media commentator, Mr Andrew Bolt highlighting a statistic that ‘Sudanese make up just 0.11 per cent of Victoria’s population but 4.8 per cent of aggravated burglary offenders.’
7.35
Mr Bolt further quoted statistics which stated:
But Sudanese youths were vastly over-represented in the 2015 data, responsible for 7.44 per cent of home invasions, 5.65 per cent of car thefts and 13.9 per cent of aggravated robberies, despite Sudanese-born citizens making up about 0.11 per cent of Victoria's population.
Nearly 70 times more likely, then, to commit a home invasion than are Australian-born youths.
7.36
In an article in the Melbourne Age in April 2017, they described an ‘African crime wave, small but rising,’ citing statistics from Crime Statistics Agency Victoria.
The statistics show car thefts by Sudanese-born offenders rose significantly from 2015 to 2016, from 89 to 155. Sudanese-born offenders committed 4.8 per cent of the aggravated burglaries in the State, according to the data. They are second in the list to Australian-born offenders, who commit nearly 80 per cent (1150 in 2015 and 1624 in 2016). Sudanese offenders make up 2.1 per cent of car thefts and car-jackings. The community makes up less than 1 per cent of the Victorian population.
7.37
More recently, another article in the Melbourne Age dated 28 September 2017 stated that ‘about one in seven Sudanese-born Victorians aged between 10 and 24 were charged with a crime last year.’ Comparing statistics from Crime Statistics Agency Victoria and the 2016 census, the Age commented that Sudanese born youth were over-represented in offenders aged 10-24.
7.38
Councillor Sam Aziz, Mayor of the City of Casey in Victoria, described gang crime in the area as an epidemic:
We are going through what I would describe as an epidemic in terms of crime. It really is that serious. I live on a lovely estate in Berwick of around 300 homes. In one week alone 25 homes were home invaded—suffered aggravated burglary. … Home invasion has become a very worrisome crime pattern in the south-east and particularly in the city of Casey.
7.39
Councillor Aziz added that information they ‘are getting about the perpetrators from both police and the media suggests they are migrant gangs.’
7.40
Mr Les Twentyman OAM, Founder and Youth Outreach Worker of the Les Twentyman Foundation, noted that the Victorian suburbs of Footscray, Dandenong, Parkville, Malmsbury and Sunshine were having gang issues. Mr Twentyman suggested that possible high youth unemployment, school truancy for low socio-economic families, homelessness, poverty and substance abuse all make youth vulnerable and may result in youth joining a gang.
7.41
The Uniting Church in Australia (the Uniting Church) also commented on their experience with gang issues in the Victorian suburb of Pakenham:
… we have big numbers of youths from the South Sudanese groups, and those kids have committed a lot of crimes and been working like a gang group.
7.42
The Uniting Church added:
If we leave them hanging around, that is when they commit crime. When you see people living in Pakenham, they know when school is finished, the kids go in a gang group, and everyone is scared. They do not know what to do.
7.43
The City of Wagga Wagga noted that its community members ‘anecdotally reported that they are concerned about [youth migrants] becoming increasingly involved in petty crime.’
7.44
AMES Australia also noted community concern about anti-social behaviour, particularly ‘amongst newly arrived migrant families’ who also express anxiety of their children becoming involved in in anti-social behaviour.
7.45
Anglicare Victoria acknowledged that ‘some serious and concerning crimes (including public brawls and aggravated burglaries) have been committed by young people claiming [Apex gang] membership.’ They did not, however, agree with the view that Melbourne has a gang problem:
Melbourne does not have a gang problem, but rather, continues - as it has since the birth of the State – to contain a proportion of young people who come from difficult family situations, are poorly integrated into society and engage in antisocial behaviours. Some of these young people are migrants, but these are a minority. As Victorian police statistics show, the majority of aggravated robberies, car thefts and home invasions - the types of crimes which sensationalist media stories have linked to the Apex gang – are committed by people born in Australia.
7.46
The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia (FECCA) disputed the media’s reporting of gang activity adding:
It is a loose association with no structure, no rules, no leadership and no real inter-group solidarity or loyalty. Applying the term gang is not only inaccurate it is inflammatory and creates an unnecessarily apprehensive community response because of the related connotations.
7.47
Youthlaw and Smart Justice for Young People (SJ4YP) also held the opinion that Victoria did not have a youth crime wave or ethnic gang activity.
7.48
The Settlement Services Advisory Council stated that migrant youth involved in gang activity comprised of a relatively small proportion of the overall refugee intake, adding that ‘you cannot ignore what is happening, because some of it is awful—it is horrendous and terrifying for people who have had their homes invaded or their cars jacked.’
7.49
Mr Vincent Feeny, Principal of St Francis Xavier College in Berwick Victoria, advised at a public hearing that he agreed:
… with the comments of Assistant Commissioner Leane … that the notion of Apex as a gang with office bearers et cetera is erroneous. It is more a loose alliance or just some common goals of disruption.
7.50
While acknowledging that Apex had associations with youth offending, Jesuit Social Services disputed the media rhetoric relating to gangs, adding:
There is no question that there has been some movement there that is gang related, but there is also a lot of anecdotal information, we would suggest from the work that we do with young people, where they have been branded Apex gang members and there is no relation at all.
7.51
The South Sudanese Community Association in Victoria agreed with the view that the Apex gang was a loose alliance:
… we do not think there is an Apex gang per se, other than to say that it is probably a group of young people who come together and maybe open a social media account. They have got connected. There is no hierarchy, nothing that is typical of other gangs that we have seen.
7.52
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission commented that the Apex gang was ‘quite dissipated now, because of the law enforcement action in Victoria.’
7.53
The Victorian Commission for Children and Young People (VCCYP) acknowledged ‘community concerns about a perceived increase in violent crimes, such as aggravated burglaries, robberies and car thefts, being perpetrated by groups of young people from certain migrant or refugee communities.’ They did however contend that the Victorian Crime Statistics Agency (CSA) statistics showed ‘a clear downward trend in both youth offending and the number of children and young people committing crimes.’
7.54
Statistics provided by the Victoria Police and the CSA show that there are a relatively small number of overseas born offenders compared to Australian born. In their submission, Victoria Police stated:
The crime rate for the overseas born groups was lower than the crime rate for Australian born.
The number of unique alleged youth offenders aged between 10-24 is steadily declining.
Unique Alleged offenders, aged 10-17, who were born overseas averaged more alleged offender incidents than those who were born in Australia.
A smaller cohort of youth offenders are now committing more serious offences at a higher rate.
Networked youth offending is a driver of this increase in the rate and seriousness of offending.
Networked youth offending involves young people from diverse ethnic backgrounds.
The extent that established organised crime groups are directing networked youth offending is not yet known.
7.55
When asked about the Apex gang at a public hearing, the Victoria Police stated that they had taken successful action to target the gang and that they considered it to now be a non-entity. They added that they were, however, experiencing an increase in networked offenders:
… what we have now seen are significant high-end recidivists, both Australian and non-Australian, who commit serious crimes and continue to commit a range of serious crimes—by that I mean carjackings, armed robberies and home invasions. They are part of what we call a networked offending group, who loosely connect and then connect via social media and a range of other options. They then continue to commit that crime until we apprehend them. It includes jewellery store armed robberies …
7.56
When discussing the background of networked offenders, Victoria Police added:
This is not about ethnicity or nationality to us; it is about criminality. And the fact of the matter is we see that, in this networked offending cohort, over 50 per cent of them are Australians, but there is certainly a mix of a whole range of different nationalities involved and we do not walk away from that. The question for us is not just about arresting and enforcement. We are arresting more people. We have arrested 30 per cent more people than we have ever done, and so enforcement is a key role for us in addressing this, but equally so are our proactive programs, initiatives and engagement to actually get to the root of the issue because the point you raise is very valid—with the mixture of these gangs, why is it occurring and it is youth from all nationalities.
7.57
The evidence provided by CSA concurred with that of the Victoria Police, showing that the vast majority of offenders in Victoria were Australian born.
7.58
CSA added that New Zealand and Indian born were the second and third largest alleged offenders at 1,850 and 1,028 respectively. Vietnamese, Sudanese and English born make up the top five with 949, 807, and 722 respectively.
7.59
The CSA also provided statistics on the country of birth of individuals committing more serious offences such as homicide, serious assault, rape, aggravated burglary, motor vehicle theft, riot and affray. Although the main offenders were Australian born there were some worrying trends in some other countries of birth in the categories of offences such as aggravated burglary and riot and affray.
7.60
For these more serious offences, the CSA statistics for January to December 2016 showed for the principal offence of:
homicide and related offences: Australian born were the largest cohort at 67 per cent, followed by India (3.3 per cent), China (2.2 per cent) and New Zealand (2.2 per cent);
serious assault by country of birth: Australian born comprised of 76.8 per cent, followed by New Zealand (3.2 per cent), Sudan (1.5 per cent) and India (1.3 per cent);
rape or indecent assault by country of birth: Australia (71 per cent), India (2.5 per cent), UK and Ireland (2.5 per cent) and New Zealand (1.5 per cent);
aggravated burglary by country of birth: Australia (78.8 per cent), Sudan (4.8 per cent), New Zealand (2.2 per cent), and Egypt (0.9 p per cent per cent);
non-aggravated burglary by country of birth: Australia (87.6 per cent), New Zealand (2 per cent), UK and Ireland (0.7 per cent) and Sudan (0.7 per cent);
motor vehicle theft by country of birth: Australia (84.4 per cent), New Zealand (2.9 per cent), Sudan (2.1 per cent) and Lebanon (0.6 per cent); and
riot and affray by country of birth: Australia (71.5 per cent), Sudan (6 per cent), New Zealand (5.2 per cent) and UK and Ireland (1.9 per cent).
7.61
More recent statistics obtained from CSA showed that for alleged offender incidents for aggravated burglary in the 16 to 18 years age range from July 2014 to June 2017 there had been an increase from 154 to 458 incidents.
7.62
The CSA statistics also showed:
For alleged offender incidents for Sudanese born for serious assault, aggravated burglary and motor vehicle theft in the 10 to 18 years age range from July 2014 to June 2017 had increased.
For alleged offender incidents for homicide and related offences in the 10 to 18 years age range from July 2014 to June 2017, the total had decreased from nine to less than three.
For alleged offender incidents for serious assault and related offences in the 10 to 18 years age range from July 2014 to June 2017, the total had decreased from 1,947 to 1,795.
For alleged offender incidents for aggravated burglary in the 10 to 18 years age range from July 2014 to June 2017, the total had increased from 232 to 757.
For alleged offender incidents for non-aggravated burglary in the 10 to 18 years age range from July 2014 to June 2017, the total had decreased from 2,391 to 2,118.
For alleged offender incidents for non-aggravated burglary in the 10 to 18 years age range from July 2014 to June 2017, the total had increased from 2,392 to 2,521.
7.63
The Victorian State Government provides data on the estimated resident population by country of birth from the 2016 Census. Of Victoria’s total population of 5,926,620 residents: 3,845,493 were born in Australia; 171,443 in England; 169,802 in India; 160,652 in China; 93,253 in New Zealand; 51,290 in the Philippines; 18,637 in Iraq; 13,282 in Egypt; 6,199 in Samoa; 5,665 in Sudan; and 3,860 in Kenya.
7.64
CSA added that they also identified a correlation between disadvantaged groups and an earlier offending age:
We have identified two other groups that have a much smaller person share—they are very small in the numbers of people in those groups—but their impact is much greater: they offend at a higher frequency and they tend to start offending earlier. We have a second group that starts offending at 15, 16 and 17. Those groups are very heavily aligned with disadvantage when we have looked at correlates.
7.65
The CSA were also able to provide statistics on the victims of crime which showed that all nationalities were affected in addition to increases in the past three years:
The first is Australia with 56½ thousand victims. The second is India. The third is New Zealand. The fourth is China, fifth is Vietnam, sixth is English born, seventh is Sudanese, eighth is Italian, ninth is Sri Lankan and tenth is Greek born victims of crime. I just wanted to provide that as a bit of additional context. Most of the country-of-birth groups, when we looked at the data we do have available, showed increases in the last three years as well.
Table 7.2: Unique victims by country of birth - January 2014 to December 2016
|
|
|
|
Country of Birth (group)
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
|
Australia
|
49,130
|
49,851
|
56,532
|
|
India
|
1,025
|
1,084
|
1,229
|
|
New Zealand
|
848
|
830
|
1,027
|
|
China
|
550
|
616
|
864
|
|
Vietnam
|
613
|
657
|
711
|
|
England
|
594
|
649
|
699
|
|
Sudan
|
402
|
435
|
472
|
|
Italy
|
361
|
346
|
351
|
|
Sri Lanka
|
289
|
321
|
343
|
|
Greece
|
315
|
309
|
341
|
|
Turkey
|
338
|
302
|
322
|
|
Lebanon
|
299
|
359
|
319
|
|
All other countries
|
4,648
|
4,879
|
5,698
|
|
Unknown
|
119,626
|
128,129
|
143,205
|
|
Grand Total
|
179,038
|
188,767
|
212,113
|
Source: Crime Statistics Agency, Submission 104, p. 12.
Intervention strategies
7.66
A key theme from submitters during the course of the inquiry was the need for early intervention strategies designed at providing support for young people.
7.67
As noted above, the Fairfield Local Area Command, Fairfield based service providers and Fairfield City Council all agreed that early intervention was an effective means of promoting integration and social cohesion.
7.68
Fairfield City Council recommended:
That additional resourcing be allocated to high settlement areas such as Fairfield City, specifically for former refugee youth focused social activities, early intervention and diversional programing. The design of such a model should take place in consultation with the community and service providers who will utilise and implement such activities.
7.69
Mr William Abur suggested that intervention services aimed at supporting young migrants can be ‘one of the best approaches’.
7.70
Youth Action agreed that a ‘greater emphasis on prevention and early intervention, addressing root causes, increasing protective factors and decreasing the vulnerability of young people.’
7.71
The ACT Government commented that early intervention services were a key component to successful settlement, adding:
Young people engaging in anti-social behaviour should have access to early intervention programs which encourage them to link with education, training and employment programs.
7.72
The Forced Migration Research Network of the University of New South Wales suggested that refugee families have access to specialised support including:
Programs to support families and to facilitate adaptation before conflicts arise rather than only providing intervention when there is a crisis;
Negotiation and conflict resolution skills;
How to mesh rights with culture without compromising the law; and
Intervention as a community-wide approach rather than a just targeted approach.
7.73
AMES Australia commented that investment in initial settlement support, including early intervention support, was essential adding that:
It provides the required early intervention support to enable new arrivals to settle as quickly and effectively as possible and begin to make a social and economic contribution in their new country;
It allows Australia to take advantage of the skills, experience and capacity to contribute to Australia’s economy as soon as possible; and
It impacts on the acceptance of new arrivals into the broader Australian community where they are seen as willing and able to contribute economically and engage in mainstream activities and therefore contributes to social cohesion.
7.74
The Cardinia Shore Council also noted the need for an early intervention ‘approach to ensure these young people are actively engaged in community and sporting activities and have access to literacy programs and resources.’
7.75
Foundation House, YACWA, MYAN WA and the Commission for Children and Young People Western Australia (CCYPWA) emphasised the importance of early intervention. The CCYPWA also stated that it was important for migrant youth to remain connected to the community:
… family support, and engagement in education, recreation and employment opportunities, so that children and young people from migrant backgrounds remain connected to their community and are able to actively participate in it.
7.76
The YACWA also considered early intervention the solution:
The real solution to that in the long term is really effective early intervention and prevention programs that engage young people in meaningful, constructive and positive ways that help them build their identity.
7.77
Les Twentyman and Multicultural Youth Queensland (MYQ) called for engaging young people with case workers. MYQ stated:
The provision of youth caseworkers for individual young people would provide the opportunity for in-depth engagement with young people from the time of arrival. An identified focus on mental health and wellbeing in the youth sub-plan would ensure prevention and early intervention measures are put in place at the earliest possible opportunity.
7.78
Youthlaw and SJ4YP suggested that an assessment of young offenders in Victoria was required and called for ‘implementation of intensive, targeted and multidisciplinary interventions from highly skilled staff to address this complex issue.’
7.79
The South Australian Government noted that a one-size-fits-all model was not successful in migrant communities and submitted that:
… an appropriate mix of tailored prevention and early intervention strategies are required. This includes strengthening the capacity of migrant communities themselves to identify and respond. A recent paper published by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) highlighted the importance of consulting and involving community elders and leaders in developing culturally appropriate prevention strategies.
7.80
The South Australian Government believed that parenting education was a key component of a holistic early intervention strategy:
As part of this early intervention, better coordination is needed between settlement services to provide parenting education and advice and connection to parenting groups, child care and community resources to mitigate the effects of social isolation and lack of information.
7.81
Victorian Multicultural Commission suggested establishing practical interventions like sport, arts and culture to avoid social disengagement.
7.82
The AGD noted the benefits on investing in intervention strategies, particularly for preventing crime:
It makes sense to invest resources in preventing crime rather than only disrupting crimes that are imminent or investigating crimes after they have occurred. This is true whether we are talking about domestic violence, property crime or, in our case, violent extremism.
7.83
The DSS agreed with the benefit that early intervention programs could provide:
There is strong evidence that targeted early intervention programs for at-risk young people are a cost effective way to reduce anti-social behaviours and build community cohesion.
7.84
DSS added that settlement services were based on a number of principles including needs based services; foster welcoming communities; collaboration and coordination; evaluation and early intervention, stating:
Early intervention. Humanitarian entrants and other vulnerable migrants generally need intensive initial support. Providing early intensive support helps refugees get settled and participate in society as soon as possible. Early intervention helps to prevent longer term reliance on welfare services.
Mentoring programs
7.85
Mr Abur believed that mentoring programs would ‘assist young people to move beyond their own community and link up with the wider Australian society.’
7.86
MYQ provided a case study highlighting the benefits mentors can play in an individual’s life as positive role models.
7.87
YACWA and MYAN WA highlighted that young people from migrant and refugee backgrounds ‘identified a need for mentors to assist newly arrived (and settled) refugee and migrant young people and their families.’ They both recommended implementing a mentorship program at the State level:
Provide resources to implement a peer based mentorship program at a State based level, and provide positive role models for young people to guide them through the settlement process.
7.88
At a public hearing YACWA stated that mentoring was a powerful tool and provided migrant youth a sense of belonging:
The idea of the mentorship is young people empowering other young people to be participants in their communities, and the way that encourages them is through leadership activities, through advocacy training and through creating the space and area for young people to come together and share the experiences that they face on a daily basis. That has an impact on their sense of belonging, and once a sense of belonging is restored in the young person they can be positive contributors to their communities. We've seen that that is a very powerful tool, and it can also be extended to young people who come to Australia—as in recent arrivals—by creating the space and making sure that programs like this continue and are existent for the young people.
7.89
Youthlaw and SJ4YP commented that a former UK gang member also believed that mentors, counsellors and workers were a key component of ‘genuinely wanting the young person to rise from their situation.’
7.90
The Les Twentyman Foundation provided a bit more detail on the role a mentor can play in a young migrants life:
… it is being available all the time to speak to them about their issues and what they are going through, giving them positive feedback about the issues and things that are happening, making sure you are just there as someone positive. When they need to have a conversation, you are there to pick them up. A lot of the time, you need to know that you are not a psychologist or a youth worker. That is the difficult part.
7.91
The Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network of NSW believed that there was tremendous value in mentoring programs noting that many migrant mentees in the program went on to become mentors.
7.92
The Australian Refugee Association believed that any type of youth mentoring was important:
I believe that mentoring in any sense for youth is very important, because youth need someone to look up to. It is true that mentors share their experiences. The youth can learn. They can look up and say, 'I want to be like that person.' Getting them involved within the programs, and getting them engaged within the community, they will be engaged. At the same time, through these programs they can develop themselves and give back something to the community. I believe it is very important.
7.93
The Police Federation of Australia (PFA) agreed with the value of mentoring programs, and in particular between police and youth:
… you've only got to go particularly into the more regional, remote areas of the country to find some of the activities between police and youth are absolutely amazing—and unfortunately it doesn't get positively reported, as it should do. So I think there is a particular role, and a very important role, for police officers to be involved, particularly in that area of youth. It helps to build the relationships, but it also gives sometimes youths—some of them who don't really have someone in their home life that they can talk to, perhaps they've found someone in a police officer they can trust and talk to.
7.94
In its submission the DSS noted that it funded youth organisations through settlement grants which included mentors for at risk young people to increase life skills. DSS added that it had achieved settlement outcomes through the Settlement Grants program in the area of mentoring and leadership.
Committee comment
7.95
The Committee heard from a range of participants in the inquiry about the importance of mentors, noting that the support provided from mentors can be both immediate and long lasting.
7.96
The Committee agrees that mentoring programs provide a number of benefits to youth from refugee and migrant backgrounds. This can include youth aspiring to be mentors themselves and providing for engagement within the community.
7.97
The evidence to the Committee was clear that migrating and settling in another country is generally challenging and stressful, and has particular challenges to young people. Mentoring and mentoring programs have a role in helping migrant youth as they navigate through this transition.
7.98
The Committee was particularly interested in the role of mentoring as a mechanism to engage and prevent youth from undertaking anti-social behaviour as well as re-engaging youth who have offended back into the community. The Committee notes that participation by ex-gang members and reformed criminals can be valuable in these programs.
7.99
In Los Angeles, the Committee was able to view the effect of mentoring programs such as the Epiphany project which works to help non-active gang members reintegrate back into their communities (Chapter 8).
7.100
The value of mentoring programs is obvious to communities, law enforcement and settlement providers. The Committee considers that youth from refugee and migrant backgrounds would be assisted greatly by participation in mentoring programs and that they should be expanded more widely.
7.101
The Committee recommends that a mentoring program be established that includes appropriate members of the sporting and arts community as well as reformed criminals.
7.102
The Committee recommends that the Department of Social Services establish a pilot migrant youth mentoring program. The program should consider including experienced members of the sporting, arts and academic communities.
Justice re-investment
7.103
Some submitters suggested adopting a justice reinvestment approach as a preventative measure.
7.104
Youthlaw and SJ4YP provided a little background on the aim of justice reinvestment to promote ‘greater local place based investment over the longer term that is more likely to have a real and sustainable impact on the complex social issues underpinning youth crime.’
7.105
They added that it involved investment in disadvantaged communities to:
… identify, develop and implement local solutions addressing economic and social determinants and risk factors behind youth offending. It will help reduce the number of children and young people at risk of becoming adult offenders or prisoners, and overtime reducing expenditure in courts and prisons, with these saving redirected to other disadvantaged communities.
7.106
The Flemington and Kensington Community Legal Centre (FKCLC) advocated for establishing a justice reinvestment approach stating that it was highly successful.
Committee comment
7.107
The Committee notes that in June 2011, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (ATSIA Committee) released its report into Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system. As part of that inquiry the Committee noted that a substantial amount of witnesses ‘emphasised the need to invest more heavily in preventative measures rather than punitive responses to Indigenous offending behaviour through justice reinvestment.’
7.108
That report provided a brief description of the justice reinvestment model:
[Justice reinvestment is] a criminal justice policy approach that diverts a portion of the funds that will be spent on imprisonment to local communities where there is a high concentration of offenders. The money that might be spent on imprisonment is reinvested in programs and services that address the underlying causes of crime in these communities … Justice reinvestment is not just about reforming the criminal justice system but trying to prevent people from getting there in the first place.
7.109
The ATSIA Committee commented that it supported:
… the principles of justice reinvestment in that it focuses funds towards early intervention and prevention rather than incarceration, and it allows communities to make decisions about the best possible solutions to reducing offending behaviour.
7.110
The ATSIA Committee recommended:
The Committee supports the principles of justice reinvestment and recommends that governments focus their efforts on early intervention and diversionary programs and that further research be conducted to investigate the justice reinvestment approach in Australia.
7.111
The Government response to that report accepted the recommendation and noted that they had established a National Justice Chief Executive Officers Working Group specifically to consider justice reinvestment and that the Australian Institute of Criminology was preparing a paper on the application of justice reinvestment in an Australian context.
7.112
The Working Group concluded that: ‘Justice reinvestment provides a robust, integrated framework to develop criminal justice strategies that target the underlying causes of crime.’
7.113
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee (SLCARC) also undertook an inquiry into the value of a justice reinvestment approach to criminal justice in Australia. The Committee concluded:
It appears to the committee that given the significant failures of the current justice system, it is time to look at where and why crime occurs and to address the underlying drivers of offending and reoffending. The committee considers that justice reinvestment has a proven track record in achieving successful outcomes through both lowering incarceration rates and targeting the drivers of crime. It is a community focussed, evidenced-based approach that provides savings, diverts offenders, addresses the causes of crime, and strengthens communities.
7.114
The SLCARC made a number of recommendations in its report focussed on establishing a Commonwealth justice reinvestment approach. To date a government response has yet to be provided.
7.115
Since that time some State and Territory governments, independent non‑profit organisations, and some universities have trialled a justice reinvestment approach, however, it does not appear as though the Commonwealth has taken any further steps to do the same.
7.116
The Committee supports the recommendations of our Senate colleagues and recommends that the Australian Government establish a justice reinvestment approach.
7.117
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government implement Recommendations 1 to 8 of the Senate Education and Employment References Committee report on the value of a justice reinvestment approach to criminal justice in Australia.
7.118
If, however, the early intervention strategies are not working, and visa holding youth from refugee and migrant backgrounds are becoming involved in criminal activity, there needs to be a mechanism in place to identify those individuals and put them on notice.
7.119
The notice should provide advice that that the visa holders ability to apply to become an Australian citizen in the future may be jeopardised if they commit further offences.
7.120
The Committee considers this an important step in the process to enable youth from refugee and migrant backgrounds to be aware of the potential serious consequences of criminal behaviour.
7.121
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection issue a notice to any visa holders who have committed a criminal offence that is heard before a magistrate or a court. The notice should contain advice that the visa holder’s ability to apply to become an Australian citizen in the future may be jeopardised if they commit further offences.
7.122
Currently youth from refugee and migrant backgrounds are not aware of the impact of criminal behaviour on future applications for Australian citizens and the Committee heard that law enforcement officers may not be aware of an individual’s visa status, nor have the appropriate systems to ensure that this information can be obtained.
7.123
In order to issue a notice, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection needs to be advised that visa holders have committed an offence. Based on the evidence received for this inquiry it is clear that there appears to be a significant gap in the collection of this information and its ability to be shared between the police, corrective services and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
7.124
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth provide funding to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to collect data on the visa status of offenders. The data needs to be included on the national database and the National Criminal Intelligence System. This will enable all relevant agencies gain timely access to the data and provide greater coordination between the agencies.
7.125
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth provide funding to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission for the express purpose of collecting data on the visa status of offenders for inclusion on their national database and the National Criminal Intelligence System.
Cancellation under the Migration Act
7.126
In its submission, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) provided an overview of the character and cancellation provisions in the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) stating that they were ‘designed to protect the Australian community by supporting the management of integrity, character and national security risks presented by non-citizens’.
7.127
The DIBP highlighted that in December 2014, ‘character and cancellation provisions were significantly strengthened through the introduction of new character requirements and a mandatory cancellation provision for non-citizens serving prison sentences who fail the character test in certain ways.’
7.128
The DIBP added that the stricter character requirements were targeted primarily at ‘non-citizens who have been involved in criminal activities, associated with criminal organisations or been convicted of serious crimes.’
7.129
They added that to enter and remain in Australia:
All non-citizens … must abide by the character provisions set out in section 501(6) of the Act, or risk cancellation of their visa. A non-citizen who does not pass the character test may have their visa cancelled or an application of a visa to enter Australia refused.
7.130
The DIBP stated that a ‘person can fail the character test on a number of grounds, including on the basis of their criminal record, association with criminal organisations or because their general conduct poses a risk to the Australian community.’
Table 7.3: Summary of relevant powers under section 501 of the Act
|
|
|
|
s501(1)
|
To refuse a visa application on character grounds with notice given.
|
|
s501(2)
|
To cancel a visa on character grounds with notice given.
|
|
s501(3)
|
The Minister may personally decide to refuse or to cancel a visa in the national interest on character grounds without notice.
|
|
s501(3A)
|
The visa must be cancelled if the visa holder does not pass the character test because of a substantial criminal record, or because they have been convicted, found guilty or had a charge proven of a sexually based offence involving a child, and that the person is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment.
|
|
s501A
|
The Minister may personally decide to refuse or to cancel a visa in the national interest by setting aside a decision made by a delegate or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
|
|
s501BA
|
The Minister may personally decide to cancel a visa in the national interest by setting aside a decision to revoke a mandatory cancellation made by a delegate or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under section 501CA.
|
|
s501C
|
The Minister may personally revoke a visa cancellation made under section 501(3) after receiving representations from the cancellee.
|
|
s501CA
|
To revoke a mandatory visa cancellation made under section 501(3A) after receiving representations from the person cancelled.
|
Source: Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Submission 73, pp. 17-18.
7.131
The DIBP advised that it undertook a number of steps prior to making a decision to cancel a visa under section 501 which involved:
Identifying non-citizens of possible concern by ‘requiring visa applicants to provide criminal history information for particular visa sub-classes and complete a character declaration as part of their visa application’;
Referring any adverse information relating to a visa holder to the National Character Consideration Centre (NCCC); and
Providing visa holders a ‘Notice of Intention to Consider Refusal/Cancellation to which the non-citizen can respond within a certain timeframe’.
7.132
After receiving all the relevant information, including the person’s response to the notice, the decision-maker ‘will consider and weigh up adverse information, together with any mitigating information, before making a decision whether to cancel the visa or not.’
7.133
The decision-maker ‘will either be a delegate of the Minister, or the Minister or Assistant Minister personally. Some powers can only be exercised by the Minister or Assistant Minister.’
7.134
Delegates of the Minister ‘are given binding guidance, through Ministerial Direction 65, as to what factors they must consider when exercising discretionary decisions under the character test’, including:
Primary considerations:
Protection of the Australian community;
Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and
Expectations of the Australian community.
Other relevant considerations:
International non-refoulement obligations;
Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
Impact on Australian business interests;
The extent of impediments if the person was removed.
7.135
The Minister, however, is not bound by Ministerial Direction but may still consider the above factors prior to making a decision.
7.136
In its submission, the DIBP stated that a decision maker could decide not to cancel or revoke the visa:
After considering all relevant information, a decision-maker may decide not to cancel the visa or to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision. There is an option in such cases to issue a formal warning to the non-citizen of the consequences to their immigration status should they engage in further criminal conduct.
7.137
After a decision is made to cancel a visa, the non-citizen:
Will be detained under section 189(1) of the Act and ‘will be removed to their country of origin, subject to completion of any custodial sentences imposed for criminal offending’;
‘May be able to seek merits review of the decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) (except where the decision was made personally by the Minister)’; or
May ‘request revocation of the cancellation decision’ in circumstances where the ‘cancellation was undertaken without prior notice’.
7.138
The DIBP provided statistics on the number of visas cancelled or refused under the character provisions of section 501 of the Act, noting that:
DIBP removed 1,265 people from Australia between 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2016; and
Between 2015 and 31 July 2017, the vast majority of visas cancelled under sections 501(3A) of the Act were from citizens of New Zealand (54 per cent) and the United Kingdom (10 per cent).
Table 7.4: Visas cancelled or refused under section 501 of the Act
|
|
|
|
|
2010/2011
|
70
|
|
|
2011/2012
|
102
|
26 July 2011 – enactment of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test and Other Provisions) Bill which introduced a new character test ground in relation to non-citizens who are convicted of offences while immigration detainees.
|
|
2012/2013
|
78
|
|
|
2013/2014
|
158
|
11 December 2014 – enactment of the Migration Amendment (Character and General Cancellation) Bill which expanded character test grounds; new mandatory visa cancellation power applicable to certain non-citizens serving sentences in custodial institutions.
|
|
2014/2015
|
475
|
|
|
2016/31Dec16
|
269
|
|
|
Total
|
1265
|
|
Source: Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Supplementary Submission 73.1, p. 9.
Table 7.5: Section 501(3A) Mandatory Cancellations - by year and nationality (top 10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Zealand
|
485
|
560
|
393
|
1438
|
|
United Kingdom
|
94
|
116
|
76
|
286
|
|
Vietnam
|
20
|
36
|
36
|
92
|
|
Sudan
|
20
|
29
|
24
|
73
|
|
Fiji
|
11
|
19
|
19
|
49
|
|
Iraq
|
<10
|
16
|
16
|
41
|
|
China
|
<10
|
18
|
15
|
41
|
|
Tonga
|
<10
|
<10
|
12
|
27
|
|
Republic of Ireland
|
<10
|
<10
|
<10
|
24
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
<10
|
10
|
<10
|
24
|
|
All Other Nationalities
|
219
|
203
|
193
|
545
|
|
Total
|
849
|
1007
|
784
|
2640
|
Source: Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Supplementary Submission 73.2, p. 2.
Table 7.6: Section 501 Discretionary Cancellations - by year and nationality (top 6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Zealand
|
24
|
22
|
19
|
65
|
|
United Kingdom
|
<10
|
<10
|
<10
|
15
|
|
Tonga
|
0
|
<10
|
0
|
<10
|
|
Iraq
|
<10
|
0
|
<10
|
<10
|
|
Afghanistan
|
<10
|
0
|
0
|
<10
|
|
Lebanon
|
<10
|
<10
|
0
|
<10
|
|
All Other Nationalities
|
16
|
12
|
13
|
41
|
|
Total
|
51
|
44
|
38
|
133
|
Source: Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Supplementary Submission 73.2, p. 3.
7.139
The DIBP highlighted that in some circumstances it may be difficult to deport an individual who has had their visa cancelled:
Depending where the person has come from, it may actually be very difficult to remove them, because we would be breaching our non-refoulement obligations.
7.140
They added that under Ministerial Direction 65, decision-makers would have regard to a person’s safety prior to determining whether to cancel their visa:
… before the cancellation decision is taken—is that, in a discretionary cancellation consideration, the delegate must have a mind to international obligations and particularly non-refoulement. We, the decision-makers, are bound by Ministerial Direction No. 65, which tells decision-makers what issues they must have regard to, and that is certainly one of them. It is possible that, in discretionary cancellation consideration, there is potential that, for someone being returned to a situation which brings real and direct safety concerns for that person, a decision might sway a different way.
7.141
When asked whether minors were subject to the character test, the DIBP noted that section 501 did not deal with age specifically, but:
… as a matter of policy, we would not consider mandatory cancellation for people under 18. But, certainly, we would use discretion in our approach there.
7.142
The DIBP advised that while they were not automatically notified that visa holders under the age of 18 had committed an offence, they were:
… working with a number of organisations in Victoria, including Victoria Police, on two angles: what advice we can provide, most likely to police, that they can use in their interactions with youth and noncitizens; and also exploring the possibility of a warning regime with Victoria Police at the moment.
7.143
Victoria Police advised that they would only refer visa holders under the age of 18 for consideration under section 501 in exceptional circumstances.
Community views on the character test
7.144
The majority of submitters to this inquiry largely held the view that the current character and cancellation provisions in the Act were an adequate way of addressing non-citizens who have been involved in criminal activities.
7.145
The ACT Government did not support changes being made to the Act and stated that the ‘current migration processes, including the character test, adequately assess prospective migrants.’ They commented that access to early intervention programs would be more beneficial.
7.146
The Australian Migrant Resource Centre (AMRC), Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA), the Centre for Multicultural Youth and MCS were all of the view that the current character test provisions in the Act were adequate.
7.147
MCS, however, posited that there would be general community support if the ‘Minister were to revise the Migration Act 1958 and exercise further discretionary powers.’ They added that if changes were to be made that it ‘include robust provisions relating to the transparency and accountability of executive decision making.’
7.148
FECCA, Youthlaw and SJ4YP were all strongly opposed to extending the character test provisions to migrants under the age of 18. Youthlaw and SJ4YP added:
We reject outright any proposal that allows the deportation of children under 18 who commit crimes. They should remain exempt from the above character test provisions. It is widely acknowledged that children should be subject to a system of criminal justice that is separate from the adult system. This separation recognises their unique capacity to be rehabilitated and accepted science that explains how adolescent brain development makes children think and act differently to adults and necessitates a different justice response than adults. Australia’s immigration system must continue to accommodate this differentiated treatment.
7.149
Youthlaw, SJ4YP and the Law Council of Australia (LCA) all held the view that the current character test’s threshold was too broad in some circumstances, adding that there was no need to increase the ‘checks and balances currently contained in the Migration Act.’
7.150
Welcome to Australia believed that the character test should not be used as a deterrent.
7.151
The City of Wagga Wagga and the African Australian Community Leadership Forum believed that the ‘character test would have limited provisioning as a means to address issues arising through gang or anti-social behaviour.’
7.152
Legal Aid NSW did not consider deportation an appropriate response to juvenile offending adding that ‘further changes to the character test are not an appropriate response to anti-social behaviour by young migrants.’
7.153
The FCC were also of the view that punitive measures were not effective:
Fairfield Local Area Command, Fairfield based service providers and Fairfield City Council all agree that social engagement of youth, early intervention and diversional programing are a more effective means of promoting integration and social cohesion than punitive measures such as visa cancellations.
7.154
Harris Wake Pty Ltd agreed with the above views and suggested that cancelling a migrant’s visa could lead to other consequences:
Increasing alienation in the broader migrant community;
Reinforcing societal divisions;
Migrants may perceive that they cannot overcome racial or religious stigma, and be turned away from contributing to Australian society; and
Dramatic risk of increased extremism (‘us and them’) which is the exact opposite of what we should be trying to do in these sensitive and vulnerable communities.
7.155
While sharing concerns about migrant youth involvement in anti-social behaviour, the Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre (SMRC) urged caution when considering a ‘radical overhaul of settlement services and indeed our migration (and humanitarian) programs in a misconstrued response to a perceived ‘crime’ issue.’
7.156
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) also urged care ‘when imposing penalties for criminal conduct which occurred before a person turned 18, as their level of culpability for criminal acts is lower than would be the case for an adult.’ They stated that they considered it inappropriate to cancel an under 18 year old’s visa on character grounds. They also identified a number of Australia’s international human rights obligations relevant to adults who had their visa refused or cancelled under section 501 of the Act, including the:
Risk that Australia could breach its non-refoulement obligations through refusing or cancelling visas of individuals towards whom Australia has protection obligations;
Risk that people subject to visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 may be subject to arbitrary immigration detention, potentially for prolonged periods;
Deportation of long-term residents of Australia who may have little or no connection to their country of citizenship; and
Separation of families resulting from the deportation of individuals who have had visas refused or cancelled on character grounds and have relatives (including children) who remain in Australia.
7.157
The AHRC encouraged a rights based approach that was balanced against community protection. They also noted concerns regarding imposing harsher penalties for non-citizens compared to Australian citizens:
That is one of the core concerns we have about the operation of 501: that it essentially imposes a much harsher punishment for the same conduct—which in some cases under 501 may not necessarily be criminal conduct—than would be the case if the person were an Australian citizen.
7.158
Dr Elyse Methven and Dr Anthea Vogl of the University of Technology Sydney also held the view that cancelling the visas of under 18 year olds would breach international conventions. They added that ‘detaining and deporting children convicted of a criminal offence also duplicates the punishment imposed on that child by a criminal court.’
7.159
The Humanitarian Group held the opinion that indefinite detention could be a consequence of cancelling a migrants visa and concurred with the above views that Australia could breach its international obligations:
Indefinite detention is an unsustainable and disproportionate means of balancing the need for community protection with non-refoulement obligations. It is also arbitrary and illegal under international human rights law.
7.160
The Humanitarian Group also echoed the concerns expressed by the Australian Law Reform Commission regarding procedural fairness and put forward the view that non-citizens face a double sentence:
… non-citizens, regardless of the amount of time they have spent in Australia or the level of connection they have with the Australian community, face what is effectively a double-sentence – one from the criminal law and another through migration law.
7.161
The South Sudanese Community Association in Victoria Inc. believed that deporting young migrants, particularly to countries in conflict, could essentially amount to a death sentence.
7.162
The VCCYP was of the view that expanding the character test to include under 18 year olds could potentially put children and young people at serious risk of harm. They stated that expanding the character test could lead to child welfare concerns:
The Commission considers that expanding the application of the character test may result in outcomes that are not in their best interests [of the child], that are discriminatory and may result in them being separated from their parents against their will. Such circumstances may arise, for example, where a child or young person has spent some or most of their life in Australia, and are removed to a country where they have limited or no support networks, limited, if any, language skills, and are without the support of their family.
7.163
The Flemington and Kensington Community Legal Centre (FKCLC) suggested that the threat of deportation put undue pressure on youth migrants:
From our experience, young people of colour who have valid defences and who are innocent of certain crimes, feel pressured to seriously consider entering a plea where they might not otherwise, because of considerations around things like deportation that arise under the 501 provisions of the Migration Act. That is extremely concerning. It is impacting upon the proper course of our criminal justice system.
7.164
The FKCLC was of the view that there was a lower level of oversight and scrutiny on decision-makers who cancel visas:
… cancellations are not taking place in public. They are not subject to the kind of scrutiny that we see through our judicial system, where normally punishment is played out before the courts and before the public. It is a very different context that we see these cancellations take place in.
7.165
A few submitters did however advocate for stronger penalties for individuals on a visa that have committed a crime.
Table 7.7: Alleged offender incidents for serious assault, by country of birth, 10 to 18 years age range - July 2014 to June 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia
|
1,699
|
1,576
|
1,462
|
|
New Zealand
|
87
|
75
|
91
|
|
Sudan
|
29
|
50
|
45
|
|
Kenya
|
4
|
10
|
15
|
|
Samoa
|
≤ 3
|
7
|
11
|
|
Egypt
|
4
|
≤ 3
|
6
|
|
Afghanistan
|
5
|
7
|
5
|
|
China
|
4
|
5
|
5
|
|
Iraq
|
≤ 3
|
6
|
5
|
|
UK & Ireland
|
≤ 3
|
5
|
4
|
|
All other countries
|
38
|
53
|
50
|
|
Unknown COB
|
71
|
83
|
96
|
|
Total
|
1,947
|
1,879
|
1,795
|
Source: Crime Statistics Agency, Supplementary Submission 104.2, p. 3.
Table 7.8: Alleged offender incidents for aggravated burglary, by country of birth, 10 to 18 years age range - July 2014 to June 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia
|
182
|
504
|
540
|
|
Sudan
|
20
|
53
|
98
|
|
New Zealand
|
<3
|
6
|
28
|
|
Kenya
|
<3
|
17
|
20
|
|
Egypt
|
<3
|
14
|
17
|
|
Ethiopia
|
<3
|
<3
|
6
|
|
Tonga
|
12
|
0
|
6
|
|
All other countries
|
6
|
14
|
19
|
|
Unknown COB
|
4
|
27
|
23
|
|
Total
|
232
|
637
|
757
|
Source: Crime Statistics Agency, Supplementary Submission 104.2, p. 4.
Table 7.9: Alleged offender incidents with a principal offence of riot and affray, by country of birth, all ages - January 2014 to December 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia
|
207
|
197
|
261
|
|
Sudan
|
9
|
9
|
22
|
|
New Zealand
|
21
|
10
|
19
|
|
Unknown COB
|
9
|
4
|
12
|
|
UK and Ireland
|
≤ 3
|
4
|
7
|
|
Sri Lanka
|
0
|
≤ 3
|
6
|
|
All other recorded countries
|
40
|
28
|
38
|
|
Total
|
288
|
254
|
365
|
Source: Crime Statistics Agency, Submission 104, p. 5.
7.166
Councillor Aziz, Mayor of the City of Casey in Victoria, believed that Australia should deport anyone on a visa that has committed a crime.
7.167
The PFA stated that they supported the Federal government's ‘initiatives in relation to the cancellation of visas that pertain to non-citizens who do not meet the character test as outlined in section 501 of the Migration Act 1958.’
7.168
The Victoria Police commented that the National Anti-Gangs Squad and the Morpheus task force referred a number of non-citizens to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for consideration under section 501. They added that visa cancellation and deportation had been an effective way of preventing and disrupting organised crime.
7.169
At the same hearing when Victoria Police were asked whether the section 501 character test should be amended to reduce the term of imprisonment required for a mandatory cancellation of visa from 12 months to any term. When asked whether the Victoria Police would make a referral to the Commonwealth of people who may be committing serious offences … getting three months imprisonment, they responded yes.
7.170
Victoria Police said that they would only make a referral for consideration under the character test when a person who is under 18 years old in exceptional circumstances. They went on to say that, generally speaking, there are ‘particular issues association with children and the need for their protection.’
7.171
The Ethnic Communities Council of Western Australia (ECCWA) held a contrary view to most other submitters arguing that the current ‘character test provisions are already unduly harsh and should be watered down to deal with individual situations much more compassionately.’
7.172
One submitter commented that the judiciary was imposing lighter sentences in cases where non-citizens faced possible deportation under the character test if found guilty of an offence. The PFA advised that they had received anecdotal information that the judiciary where handing down lenient sentences if aware of a person’s visa status.
The PFA have been provided with anecdotal information that some judges and magistrates have acknowledged the mandatory cancellation provisions of the Migration Act, before imposing sentences of less than 12 months, reportedly to ensure that the non-citizen before the court does not become exposed to the mandatory cancellation provisions of s501 (7)(c) and (d) of the Act. If this is indeed the case then it is of great concern to our members and means that the provisions of the Act are potentially being flouted by some elements of the judiciary and not being applied consistently.
7.173
The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA) published a guide on deportation for judicial officers and practitioners to the federal sentencing provisions (the Guide). The Guide states that while the judiciary must not reduce a sentence to avoid the risk of deportation, ‘there is conflicting authority as to whether an offender’s liability to be deported is a relevant factor in sentencing federal offenders’.
7.174
In its Guide, the NJCA cited a number of precedents where, in determining the sentence, the judge commented that the risk of deportation should not be a sentencing consideration and that it would be an improper administration of justice to impose a lesser sentence to avoid deportation. The Guide also cites several precedents where some judges have commented that the risk of deportation may be a relevant consideration prior to sentencing.
7.175
Section 19AK of the Crimes Act 1914 states that when ‘determining the appropriate sentence for a federal offence, a court must impose a sentence or make an order that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence.’
7.176
The Humanitarian Group, in its submission, highlighted that sentencing laws in Western Australia and other States and territories prevent a judge from tailoring a sentence to avoid deportation:
Sentencing laws in Western Australia (comparably with other States and territories) have no capacity for sentencing to take into account the impact of a sentence on a person’s visa or the likelihood of deportation. While deportation may be a mitigating factor raiseable during sentencing, a judge may not tailor a sentence to prevent section 501 applying. This follows the established principle that ‘the prospect of deportation is not a relevant matter or consideration by a sentencing Judge, in that it is the product of an entirely separate legislative policy area of the regulation of society’. The position has also been defended on the basis that taking the prospect of the applicant’s deportation into consideration has the potential to ‘produce a regime under which visitors or non-permanent residents [are] sentenced more leniently than Australians who [have] committed the same kind of offence [which…] cannot be a proper result in the administration of justice.’
7.177
The Committee also received evidence that in order to effectively administer the character test, greater communication and coordination was required between the relevant agencies.
7.178
At a public hearing, the PFA added that in some instances the DIBP may not be aware that visa holders were convicted of a criminal offence. They suggested that there needs to be better coordination between corrective services, the police and the DIBP:
What is required … is far greater communication and processing between Immigration, police, the corrections systems … there needs to be greater coordination across the various agencies in that aspect, which would be the same as this. So, if someone was given six months for quite a serious assault, that wouldn't automatically raise the provisions of the Act. But it might bring in a whole range of other issues around that individual, and that they would come up for review and someone would make a determination as to whether they're fit and proper to remain in Australia.
7.179
The PFA suggested that the National Criminal Intelligence System (NCIS) could be a way of fixing the communication issue:
… it is about linking all of the current systems—linking State police systems and other agencies' systems—basically so that all the information that we believe should be available to our agencies is readily available from an intelligence perspective, from a criminal record history perspective and for motor vehicles.
7.180
At a public hearing the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) noted how antiquated and siloed the current intelligence systems were adding that the aim of the NCIS was to bring data from individual jurisdictions together.
7.181
The ACIC stated that the NCIS also aims to address gaps in information sharing enabling law enforcement agencies to collate and analyse the data and determine whether there are any emerging themes or threats.
7.182
The ACIC highlighted that the NCIS is currently a pilot with 200 people around Australia in 15 different agencies contributing and providing feedback to build a fit for purpose intelligence system for law enforcement and intelligence.
Violent extremism
7.183
In addition to youth crime and anti-social behaviour, some submitters commented on the vulnerability of youth from migrant or refugee backgrounds to getting involved in violent extremism.
7.184
The UK Government provided a definition of extremism as:
[V]ocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas.
7.185
In October 2015 the UK Government published a Counter-Extremism Strategy which defined extremism as:
Extremism is the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also regard calls for the death of members of our armed forces as extremist.
7.186
As noted above, CARA held the view that a lack of family reunion options leaves migrant youth open to exploitation from youth extremist followers, while Harris Wake suggested that cancelling a migrant’s visa could lead to a dramatic increase of extremism.
7.187
Youthlaw and SJ4YP commented that social isolation and marginalisation could play a part in attracting young people to gangs or radicalisation.
7.188
Mr Jafri Katagar suggested that vulnerable young people who feel rejected by society may turn to terrorists and become radicalised.
7.189
When discussing violent extremism, the PFA commented that they provided in principle support for the introduction of community protection or intervention orders. They noted that a similar proposal was being discussed in Victoria:
There's a place for it, and that's why we say ‘in principle’. Obviously, you'd need to be clear on what the detail looked like. I know that it's certainly something that's been discussed in earnest in Victoria, and there is a great deal of interest, particularly, in that State. I see it as probably not a whole lot different to a family violence order.
7.190
Dr Anne Aly MP, Member for Cowan and expert in counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation, when speaking to the Committee commented that a proposal for an intervention order had merit and would enable parents to remove an individual from radicalising settings and radicalising influences to start the process of re-socialising.
7.191
When asked about the intervention orders, the AGD acknowledged that different jurisdictions were considering community protection intervention orders, something similar to a family violence order, but that no orders of that type were in existence.
7.192
DIBP highlighted that the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 contains provisions to cancel a dual national’s citizenship aged 14 or older if engaged in terrorist activities. The Act provides:
… for the cessation of citizenship of an Australian citizen (who is aged 14 or older and is also a national or citizen of another country) who acts inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified terrorist conduct, while being a member of a declared terrorist organisation, or while acting on instruction of, or in cooperation with, a declared terrorist organisation.
7.193
The Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) administers three initiatives aimed at diverting individuals from radicalising to violent extremism as well as preventing individuals from engaging in or supporting terrorism in Australia or overseas: Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Centre; CVE intervention programs; Living Safe Together Grants Program.
Countering Violent Extremism Centre
7.194
The CVE Centre is Australia’s lead policy agency for countering violent extremism providing oversight and coordination of the national countering violent extremism program; building and maintaining nationwide capabilities; and leading Australia's online activities.
7.195
The aim of the CVE Centre ‘is to reduce the risk of individuals becoming or remaining violent extremists and to address the social impacts of violent extremism.’
7.196
The CVE Centre has four priorities:
Protect Australians by addressing the factors and conditions that increase venerability to violent extremism within communities;
Challenge violent extremist ideologies, especially those that proliferate online;
Increase community awareness within schools, the police, health professionals and prison staff, to identify and support individuals at risk of radicalisation and violence; and
Divert Australians at risk of violent extremism through programs that support disengagement, rehabilitation and re-integration.
7.197
In order to increase community awareness, AGD distributes Radicalisation Awareness Kit and conduct train-the-trainer sessions.
7.198
The AGD highlighted that success in this area is predicated on ‘close and enduring collaboration with family members, friends, the community, religious leaders, frontline youth, social workers, academia and officials at all levels of government.’
Countering Violent Extremism intervention programs
7.199
The AGD’s website provides some information on the State and Territory-led intervention programs in Australia:
State and territory-led intervention programmes have been established or are under development across Australia to identify radicalised and at-risk individuals, and provide tailored services to address the root causes of their radicalisation. The Australian Government is providing coordination support and funding to State and Territory governments to help them implement their programmes.
7.200
The intervention programs:
… involve developing individually tailored case management plans to connect at-risk individuals with services such as mentoring and coaching, counselling, education and employment support. The radicalisation to violence process is unique to each person, so responses need to be flexible and meet the individual's needs.
7.201
Individuals who are at risk of becoming radicalised towards violent extremism can be referred to an intervention program by either the police, community leaders, family members, or teachers, or any other concerned party.
Living Safe Together Grants Program
7.202
The Australian Government also provides funding for community-based non-government and local government-organisations to ‘develop their capability to help individuals move away from violent extremism either by building on existing programs or developing new capability.’
7.203
Possible activities considered under the program include:
Religious and multi-cultural mentoring;
Specialised mental health services;
Education and employment counselling;
Youth and community work;
Telephone and/or online counselling.
7.204
Activities which provide support to vulnerable communities more generally ‘may be more relevant to broader social policy programmes offered by other Australian Government agencies.’
7.205
At a public hearing, the AGD advised that these early intervention programs aimed to assist individuals:
… to disengage from violent extremist ideologies or groups and reconnect with their community; we emphasise the reconnection with their community as being very important. The programs are delivered by jurisdictions and supported by the department, and involve developing individually tailored case management plans to reconnect people and provide a range of support, such as coaching, counselling, education and employment support.
7.206
The AGD added that the intervention programs were voluntary rather than mandatory because they could be considered as counterproductive:
… a lot of the advice is that mandatory involvement can be quite counterproductive in some cases and certainly won't necessarily lead to the right outcomes for a person engaging and then changing their behaviour.
7.207
When asked about whether family members were reluctant to use the National Security Hotline for individuals at risk of radicalising, the AGD highlighted a community-orientated support service that people could ring in Victoria and New South Wales:
… there is now actually more of a community-oriented line in Victoria and there is also now in New South Wales a line which is called Step Together, which actually has the ability for people to ring. It is not the National Security Hotline and it actually has trained social workers at the other end. What we have done is skill up those social workers to understand radicalisation and the concepts within it. But that is much more a subtle approach and it is saying, 'I am concerned. I want to ring but I don't want to make it look like what it is'.
7.208
On the training of social workers in the NSW context, the AGD added that some may well be from an Islamic background and some may not as it was not part of the design.
7.209
The Islamic Council of Victoria advised that they had developed a crisis service to support families with a range of issues over the telephone:
We have developed a concept in partnership with an Australian university which basically is around our own crisis services, to provide families with an opportunity to call someone, to engage with someone, if they have concerns about a family member. It is not about reporting them to the authorities. In fact, their whole aim is to deal with it as a community and provide the troubled person, in particularly youth, with the support they need to work through the issues. It could be issues to do with drugs, disenfranchisement, delinquency or whatever the case may be. Obviously, radicalisation could also be a factor here. What we want to do in the ICV is actually keep youth in particular out of the criminal justice system.
The current framework: control orders
7.210
In cases where intervention programs cease to become effective and an individual becomes radicalised, Commonwealth law enforcement officers can seek the issue of a control order.
7.211
A control order is issued by a court (at the request of the Australian Federal Police [AFP]) under Division 104 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 to allow obligations, prohibitions and restrictions to be imposed on a person, for the purpose of protecting the public from a terrorist act.
7.212
Before an order can be made a senior member of the AFP must get consent of the Commonwealth Attorney-General. The senior member must provide the Attorney-General with a request, which includes a draft of the proposed order, a summary of the grounds on which the order is sought, and a statement of the relevant facts.
7.213
The AFP can only request a control order if it suspects on reasonable grounds that the order would substantially help prevent a terrorist attack, or that the person has:
trained or participated in training with a listed terrorist organisation, or
engaged in a hostile activity in a foreign country, or
in Australia of an offence relating to terrorism, a terrorist organisation or terrorist act, or
overseas for an offence that would, if occurred in Australia, be a terrorism offence within the definition of the Crimes Act.
7.214
The types of obligations, prohibitions and restrictions may include stopping a person being in certain areas, associating with certain people and accessing certain forms of technology, including the internet. Similarly, a control order can require a person to wear a tracking device or regularly report to police.
7.215
A control order cannot last longer than 12 months and cannot apply to children under 16 years old. For people aged between 16 and 18, it can apply for a maximum of three months. Successive control orders can be made in relation to the same person.
7.216
The Control Order and Preventative Detention Orders annual report shows that for the 2015-16 year ending 30 June 2016, one interim control order was made and one interim control order was both confirmed and varied.
International counter-extremism policy
7.217
In 2015, the UK Government proposed to introduce legislation on countering violent extremism, the Extremism Bill. The UK Government, stated that when introduced the Bill would contain a number of measures aimed at countering violent extremism, including:
Banning Orders – a new power for the Home Secretary to ban extremist groups;
Extremism Disruption Orders – a new power for law enforcement to stop individuals engaging in extremist behaviour;
Closure Orders – a new power for law enforcement and local authorities to close down premises used to support extremism;
Broadcasting – strengthening Ofcom’s roles so that tough measures can be taken against channels that broadcast extremist content; and
Employment checks – enabling employers to check whether an individual is an extremist and bar them from working with children.
7.218
In May 2016, the UK Government announced that it would introduce a new Counter-Extremism and Safeguarding Bill which included additional intervention measures including:
The introduction of a new civil order regime to restrict extremist activity, following consultation;
Safeguarding children from extremist adults, by taking powers to intervene in intensive unregulated education settings which teach hate and drive communities apart and through stronger powers for the Disclosure and Barring Service;
Close loopholes so that Ofcom can continue to protect consumers who watch internet-streamed television content from outside the EU on Freeview;
We will consult on powers to enable government to intervene where councils fail to tackle extremism; and
The Government will consider the need for further legislative measures following Louise Casey’s review into integration in those communities most separated from the mainstream.
7.219
To date, neither of the bills have been introduced to the UK Parliament.
Committee comment
7.220
The Committee notes concerns of submitters about extending the character provisions in the Migration Act 1958 to under 18 year olds. The Committee also notes that there is a lack of services to assist in the participation of young people from migrant and refugee backgrounds in mainstream Australian society.
7.221
Earlier in the report, the Committee has made a series of recommendations about a range of services and programs that they believe would assist young people from migrant and refugee backgrounds to find their place in Australian society.
7.222
There are always going to be those who undertake criminal behaviour and the Committee is aware that they do this for a wide range of reasons. The earlier recommendations, in the opinion of the Committee, go a long way towards ensuring that young people from migrant and refugee backgrounds are provided with options outside the criminal justice system.
7.223
The Committee also notes community concerns about the escalation of violent crimes such as homicide, serious assault, rape, indecent assault, aggravated burglary, motor vehicle theft and rioting; particularly in Victoria. These are serious criminal offences which have a major impact on the lives of its victims and the Committee’s view is that such serious criminal offences committed by visa holders must have appropriate consequences.
7.224
It is the Committee’s view that Australian communities, all law abiding citizens and non-citizens, have an inalienable right to be protected. It is vitally important that governments do everything in their power to ensure that this is a priority.
7.225
Currently the character provisions under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 do not explicitly mention any age and the Committee believes there needs to be some clarity on how this section of the Act is applied.
7.226
The Committee is therefore recommending that anyone between 16 and 18 years of age who has been convicted of a serious violent offence, such as car jacking’s or serious assaults, have their visa cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958. While the Committee would support cancelling the visa, the deportation would not be supported until a person had attained 18 years of age. If legislation is amended, this should be accompanied by a caveat that no retrospective liability is thereby created.
7.227
The Committee is also recommending that anyone over 18 years of age who has been convicted of a serious violent offence which is prescribed, such as aggravated burglary, sexual offences and possession of child pornography, have their visa cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958.
7.228
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government amend the Migration Act 1958 requiring the mandatory cancellation of visas for offenders aged between 16 and 18 years who have been convicted of a serious violent offence, such as car jacking’s or serious assaults. If legislation is amended, this should be accompanied by a caveat that no retrospective liability is thereby created.
7.229
The Committee is also recommending that anyone over 18 years of age who has been convicted of a serious violent offence which is prescribed, such as serious assaults, aggravated burglary, sexual offences and possession of child pornography, have their visa cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958.
7.230
Australia is not immune to the threat of violent extremism. There has been a significant recent increase in violence perpetrated by extremists across Australia.
7.231
Experts agree that one of the best ways to counter violent extremism is to prevent radicalisation emerging as an issue. It is essential that we address the societal drivers that can lead to disengagement and alienation, particularly for Australian youth and the most vulnerable members of our community.
7.232
It is important that support is provided to families and communities who hold concerns for any individual vulnerable to extremist views. The Committee recommends that a hotline and online information portal be established for family or community members who are concerned about someone vulnerable to extremist views as a first level of support.
7.233
This hotline and online service could operate similar to the Step Together service which operates in NSW. It would not be a reporting service, but would offer information, advice and referrals.
7.234
The Committee notes media reports that the Step Together helpline received around five phone calls in its initial two months after launching. The Committee believes that this is because it did not have Muslims answering phones which created a cultural divide.
7.235
It is essential that the hotline should be staffed by appropriately trained social workers from a Muslim background.
7.236
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a community designed and led crisis service which includes a hotline and online information portal for family or community members who are concerned about someone vulnerable to extremist views.
7.237
The Committee is aware that there are a number of worthwhile intervention strategies aimed at promoting social cohesion and integration.
7.238
However, if the strategies to reintegrate those vulnerable to radicalisation do not work, there needs to be mechanisms in place that protects the Australian public from any radicalised individual who is attempting to take steps to instigate a violent act.
7.239
The Committee received evidence from the Attorney General’s Department that the intervention programs are voluntary and do not always work.
7.240
The Committee is concerned that the voluntary nature of these programs puts the community at risk, and a more targeted approach is required. It would be highly beneficial to introduce an intervention control order. The proposed intervention order could be used in situations where the young person’s workmates or family is concerned that a person’s extremism could lead to acts of violence and is trying to recruit other people with extremist views.
7.241
The proposed intervention order could focus on early intervention to ensure that proactive steps can be taken to protect at-risk individuals from following a pathway to violent extremism. This method would provide support to families and communities who hold concerns for any individual vulnerable to extremist views.
7.242
Intervention orders are designed to protect a person from physical assault; sexual assault; harassment; property damage or interference with property; serious threats; or stalking.
7.243
Those put on an intervention control order could have restrictions placed on whom they associate with as well as their movements, internet use banned, face curfews, be forced to report regularly to the police, undergo monitoring and be placed in reform programs.
7.244
The proposed intervention order may work in a similar way to a family violence order and issued by a court after an application is made by the Australian Federal Police or by a family member of the person. Hearings may be conducted in a closed court.
7.245
In determining whether or not to issue an intervention order, a court or magistrate may have regard to whether there is reasonable grounds to suggest that the person is following a pathway to violent extremism. Factors to be considered could include whether the individual is becoming more vocal in their community, supporting violent extremism in the public view, and likely contemplating an act of violent extremism or have had those ideations.
7.246
Those put on the proposed intervention order could have restrictions placed on whom they associate with to prevent them from associating with others with extremist views and prevent them from trying to influence others to express extremist views or actions. Similarly, they may be prohibited from going to certain places where they try to recruit others and prevented from accessing violent extremist websites, social media accounts and other listed forms of communication.
7.247
Obligations imposed by the proposed intervention order may be that a person is to attend mentoring and counselling support from a moderate peer or religious teacher or that they attend education, job training or youth activities support provided by a government agency.
7.248
As with other types of intervention orders, an intervention order does not result in a criminal record as it is a civil matter. However, if a person breaches the conditions of an intervention order it then becomes a criminal matter.
7.249
Again, as with other types of intervention orders, a breach of the conditions of the proposed order may result in penalties such as an order to undertake an intervention program, imprisonment or a fine. If the individual breaches conditions, then the magistrate has a number of options including (worst case scenario) imprisonment; which is the same as a family violence order.
7.250
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth take a lead role in establishing a nationally consistent approach and pursue on the Council of Australian Governments on Counter-Terrorism agenda the need for an intervention control order for individuals who have taken on violent extremist beliefs.
7.251
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth pursue on the Council of Australian Governments on Counter-Terrorism agenda the need for an intervention order regime for individuals who are at risk of violent extremism.