DISSENTING REPORT BY COALITION SENATORS
1.1
Coalition senators do not believe that the evidence to the inquiry
demonstrates any compelling reasons to implement the review mechanism in the
Bill for the security assessments prepared by the Australian Security Intelligence
Organisation (ASIO) in relation to refugees. Accordingly, Coalition
senators do not support the Bill or Recommendations 1 and 2 of the committee
majority's report. The Bill, or any other form of review mechanism for
adverse security assessments, will only add unnecessary time and expense to the
already protracted and costly refugee status assessment process.
1.2
Coalition senators are of the view that ASIO provides the definitive
point for advice on national security matters, drawing on its highly protected
information and evidence sources. ASIO's core mission is to 'identify and
investigate threats to security and provide advice to protect Australia, its
people and its interests in Australia and overseas'.[1]
ASIO's role includes obtaining, correlating and evaluating intelligence
relevant to security, and advising Ministers and authorities of the
Commonwealth in respect of matters relating to security.[2]
1.3
At the public hearing, the Director-General of Security, Mr David Irvine
AO, emphasised that an adverse security assessment is based on information that
a person is a threat to national security, and not on the basis that a person
'might be a criminal and conduct criminal acts'.[3]
Further, it is clear that ASIO does not take lightly the decision to grant an
adverse security assessment:
Where ASIO has issued an adverse security assessment, ASIO
has assessed it is not consistent with the requirements of security for that
individual to be issued a visa on the basis that they are likely to engage in activities
prejudicial to security...The purpose of visa security assessments is to alter
authorities to potential threats to national security manifesting in Australia.[4]
1.4
Coalition senators would point out that ASIO's processes for the conduct
of security assessments have been described by the Australian National Audit Office
(ANAO) as 'robust and...effective'[5]
and determined by the High Court of Australia in a recent case to be procedurally
fair in the circumstances of that case.[6]
1.5
In June 2012, the ANAO provided the following evaluation of ASIO's conduct
of security assessments:
[T]he ANAO concluded that ASIO's arrangements for providing
security assessments of individuals to client agencies are robust and, broadly,
effective...ASIO staff are well-trained and follow clearly defined procedures in
conducting security assessments...In terms of the quality of judgements made by
ASIO assessors, there are quality assurance processes in place for the small
proportion of security assessments that result in prejudicial advice [that is,
qualified or adverse security assessments].[7]
1.6
The question of whether ASIO failed to comply with the requirements of
procedural fairness was considered by the High Court of Australia in Plaintiff M47/2012 v Director-General
of Security & Ors.[8]
In that case, the plaintiff was interviewed by ASIO officers, in the presence
of his legal adviser and a translator, and was offered the opportunity to
provide information on matters which were later included in the security
assessment.[9]
The High Court determined that there had been no denial of procedural fairness
in the conduct of the security assessment.
1.7
It is the strong view of Coalition senators that the Australian Government
should not be looking to add further costs and bureaucracy to refugee status assessments
which are already expensive and time consuming. Rather, the Australian Government
should be looking to reduce the costs and bureaucracy involved in this process.
While it may be the case that a subsequent security assessment could result in
a different outcome for an individual, Coalition senators do not believe that
this supports the creation of a new, or more elaborate, mechanism for review
for security assessments.
1.8
In the absence of any established need, therefore, Coalition senators
conclude that neither the Bill nor Recommendations 1 and 2 of the committee
majority's report can be supported. The best protection is to restore proven
policies that stop the boats coming to Australia in the first place. These
policies were abolished by Labor, which has led to more than 13,400 people
coming to Australia by boat, including more than 6,000 since the last
election. This is why the Australian immigration detention network is in
crisis.
| Senator Gary Humphries |
Senator Sue Boyce |
| Deputy Chair |
|
| |
|
| Senator Michaelia Cash |
|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page