Chapter 1
Immigration and Border Protection portfolio
1.1
This chapter summarises some of the matters raised during the
committee's consideration of the additional estimates for the Immigration and Border
Protection portfolio for the 2014–15 financial year.
1.2
The Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection
(DIBP, the department) and the Commissioner of the Australian Border Force
(ABF) provided, at length, opening statements that facilitated senators to ask questions
based on the content of those statements. A synopsis of the opening statements
is provided below.
1.3
The Secretary informed the committee that the High Court of Australia's
ruling on the case known as M68 upholds 'the legal foundations of both turn
back and take back maritime operations'.[1]
The Secretary stated that any attempt to enter Australia by illegal maritime
means would result in vessels either being safely turned around or being 'taken
to Papua New Guinea or Nauru for the purposes of being assessed and processed
for potential settlement outside Australia or return[ed] to [their] country of
origin'.[2]
1.4
In relation to people that are currently in the regional processing
centres (RPCs) or currently in Australia for medical purposes, the Secretary
stated:
[T]he department will continue to ensure that adequate
medical services are provided to those who require them. Transferees and
refugees temporarily in Australia for medical treatment or accompanying those
in need of treatment will be returned to Nauru and Papua New Guinea, as the case
applies, at the conclusion of their treatment, noting that determinations on
this will be made on a case-by-case basis.[3]
1.5
The amalgamation of DIBP with the Australian Customs and Border
Protection Service (ACBPS) was also commented on by the Secretary. As of
1 July 2015, the integrated department with the ABF as the
enforcement arm would:
manage our nation's border processes by which we oversee the
flow of people and goods to and from our nation...we are Australia's gateway to
the world and the world's gateway to Australia. On occasions, we will need to
act as gatekeepers and, as necessary, protect the border by all lawful means.
However, the daily operating mode of the department will be to act as the open
conduit of Australia's engagement with the world around us for the purposes of
trade, travel or migration. The amalgamation of immigration and customs has
been successfully accomplished.[4]
1.6
However, the Secretary informed the committee that reforms and the
integration of staff, financial, legal, infrastructure, technology and
organisational policies and processes remain ongoing. It was noted that the amalgamation
would save the Commonwealth $270 million over the forward estimates period.[5]
1.7
Finally, an update was provided to the committee on the ongoing enterprise
agreement negotiations. The Secretary said that a reduction of only 184
employees, over the life of the agreement would have been required had
employees accepted the previous offer. A larger pay increase would result in
more employee reductions.[6]
1.8
The Commissioner for the ABF provided further details on the
establishment and activities of the ABF. The Commissioner highlighted the
record drug seizure of 7.3 tonnes in 2014–15 and the work of the
counter-terrorism unit (CTU) teams at Australia's international airports. CTU
officers have assessed almost 110 000 inbound and outbound passengers. These
assessments had resulted in 1100 outcomes, including the collection of
intelligence and referrals to security and intelligence partners. ABF had
detected more than $3 million in undeclared currency in 2014–15.[7]
1.9
During the Commissioner's opening statement, the committee was informed
that the ABF had assumed responsibility for Australia's onshore immigration
detention facilities and is now responsible for the 2000 detainees in those
facilities. The ABF had 'embarked on a substantial remediation program to
improve the security, safety and amenity of these facilities'.[8]
Compulsory training courses had been instituted for ABF officers that
incorporated 'input and delivery from NGOs and oversight bodies such as the
Australian Human Rights Commission, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Minister's
Council on Asylum Seekers and Detention, and the Child Protection Panel'.[9]
The operating policies and practices of the detention facilities had been
overhauled, with the implementation of new risk assessment tools and community
monitoring mechanisms. Service providers to these facilities had also been
engaged to improve security, medical and recreational services.[10]
1.10
The Commissioner's opening statement provided senators with an update on
the ABF's maritime capabilities. It was reported that the new Cape class fleet was
fully operational, as was the ABF's berthing facility and marine base in Darwin.
The ABF has had operational success relating to illegal maritime people
smuggling and other civilian maritime threats, especially illegal foreign
fishing within Australia's maritime borders.[11]
1.11
Additional commentary was provided on the work of ABF at Australia's
airports, namely the recruitment of front-line officers and the investment and
installation of automated smart gates, with an anticipated 90 outbound smart
gates being commissioned by the end of this calendar year across the entire
airport network.[12]
The Commissioner also highlighted the creation of the Trusted Trader program
that had 22 participants and is projected to include approximately 1000 traders,
representing 30 per cent of Australia's two way trade by 2020.[13]
1.12
The committee proceeded to enquire on matters relating to the opening
statements of the Secretary and Commissioner, and the funding and operations of
both DIBP and ABF. Key topics raised during the hearings are provided in more
detail below.
The High Court's ruling on M68 and subsequent return of asylum seekers to
Nauru and Manus Island
1.13
Senators asked questions relating to the planned return of asylum
seekers in Australia for medical purposes to offshore RPCs. The Secretary
advised the committee that advice would be first sought by medical
practitioners to determine whether an individual is able to be returned to the RPCs.
Subsequently, the Secretary stated that the department 'will work through those
[determinations] in a staged fashion...They will not be, does not need to be and
should not be a bulk determination'[14]
and '[a]ll persons, when they are fit to travel, will be sent back to Nauru.
That is both policy and law. And then, within that, individual determinations
will be made on a compassionate and empathetic basis'.[15]
1.14
The Secretary highlighted that the High Court ruling on M68 had provided
the department with a 'very clear legal footing that it is able to return
persons'[16]
to Nauru and Manus Island. Additionally:
As [the department] improve[s] the medical facilities on
Nauru, with the agreement of the Nauru government and in support of their role
as the processing authority, there will be less and less opportunity and
requirement to repatriate people to Australia.[17]
1.15
The department advised the committee on the number of transferees and
refugees that are currently in Australia, particularly those whose return to
the RPC on Nauru was delayed due to the M68 case. Details of those numbers are
in Table 1.1.[18]
Table 1.1:
|
|
Transferees[19]
|
Refugees
|
|
Individuals in
Australia to be returned to the Nauru RPC
|
280
|
16
|
|
Individuals currently
in Nauru RPC
|
357
|
840
|
|
Individuals in
Australia to be returned to the Manus Island RPC
|
34
|
2
|
|
Individuals currently
in Manus Island RPC
|
472
|
404
|
1.16
In total, 267 people would be returned to Nauru as a result of the
recent High Court (M68) ruling. Of this number, 37 transferees are babies born
in Australia;[20]
62 people from Nauru RPC were not subject to the M68.[21]
The welfare of children in detention
1.17
The welfare of children in detention, in particular, children in the
open centre on Nauru, was discussed during the hearing.
1.18
In regards to children's education, the department informed senators
that DIBP, in partnership with Nauru's Department of Education, had enhanced Nauru's
school infrastructure by building eight new classrooms at a value of approximately
$9 million. School counsellors and teachers have been provided through the
Brisbane Catholic Education Office. Assistance was also provided through the
University of New England's campus on Nauru and the University of the South
Pacific.[22]
1.19
The department stated that a number of child detainees did not attend
school. Approximately 50 per cent of children from the RPC were not attending
school, which roughly reflects the number of children that had not engaged with
the education facilities in the RPC. Preschool activities are provided to
younger children within the centre, and older children are encouraged to go to
school. Other services include the children protection unit and a gender
violence unit that provide counselling to refugees, transferees and Nauruans.[23]
1.20
In regards to the medical conditions of children held in detention, the
Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of DIBP informed the committee that his 'general
impression of the health services has been very positive—of the skilled
clinicians [he] had met. [Clinicians] know their patients and have an interest
in their clinical situation and care'.[24]
The CMO commented that 'the government and the department's concerted efforts
to remove children from detention' has meant that there are fewer children in
detention,[25]
however, the CMO acknowledged that '[t]he scientific evidence is that detention
affects the mental state of children. It is deleterious and for that reason
wherever possible children should not be in detention'.[26]
1.21
The Secretary of DIBP, in response to the CMO's comments, reminded the
committee that:
it is the government's policy that it will do whatever
possible within the ambit of the policy to get children out of detention. Those
who are repatriated to Nauru do not go back to detention; it is an open centre.
The handful that are left in Australia... We are working as carefully as we can
with relevant families to try to come up with arrangements where, even if one
or both parents have to be held in detention for security concerns, which the
department is well briefed about as is the minister, accommodative arrangements
are put in place so that the children are outside of detention.[27]
1.22
A concern was raised regarding developmental delays of children in
detention. In response to this concern, the CMO advised the committee that it
was for this reason he highlighted the importance of children having access to
a multidisciplinary team of medical experts that included psychologists,
psychiatrists, occupational therapists and speech pathologists.[28]
Allegations of the sexual abuse of a minor on Nauru
1.23
The committee queried the department on reports of the alleged rape of a
five year old child at the Nauru RPC. The committee heard that the
department had contacted a paediatrician from the Royal Children's Hospital in
Sydney and were advised that the child was not five years old and the
allegations of sexual assault are against an older child from within the facility.
The department stated that this was not an allegation of rape and that it was
in fact 'physical skin to skin contact'.[29]
1.24
Furthermore, the allegations had already been brought to the attention
of the department and had been investigated by the child protection panel; the
incident was also considered in the Moss report. The child protection panel
determined that the department's actions were correct and the department
ensured support services were provided including medical, welfare and
counselling. Within one month of the incident, the child was moved to Australia
for further counselling and was living in the community with his family.[30]
1.25
The incident and the allegations of sexual assault were, at the time of
the hearing, under investigation by Nauruan police.[31]
Enterprise Agreement negotiations
1.26
The Commissioner of the ABF and the Secretary of DIBP were questioned by
the committee on matters relating to ongoing wage negotiations. The Secretary
advised the committee that the department was currently preparing for a second
offer after the first offer was rejected by 91 per cent of employees. The
Secretary said the 'offer that we are putting is as reasonable and as generous
as we can craft within the government's parameters'.[32]
1.27
The amalgamation of the ACBPS and DIBP had resulted in some tension
during the wage negotiation process. The Secretary informed the committee the
one tension has been reconciling the two different pay scales of ACBPS and DIBP
employees. Some of the difficulties confronted by the department were:
How you reconcile those scales over time; how you trade-off
giving workers a general pay increase but also deal with anomalous situations...in
some cases with quite ancient allowances that have not been reviewed for many,
many years and that in some cases are not at all connected with contemporary
work practices; and how you, at the same time as blending a workforce, preserve
traditional benefits that have arisen through two different streams, as it
were, of entitlements is very complicated.[33]
1.28
The Secretary denied that the department's proposal was based on 'a
legacy Customs pay offer and a legacy immigration pay offer'; instead, the
department was proposing 'one set of pay outcomes [for its] staff'.[34]
Furthermore:
[employees] cannot be doing the same job prima facie, insofar
as a former Customs officer—former—who brings a different set of skills to the
job that is currently being done certainly should not be docked salary and go
backwards; so they are going to retain that salary. For a former Immigration
officer who is asked to come up to, say, the standard of being an investigator
or to operate in the new arrangements that we have and who brings, potentially,
a lower salary, in terms of local management, consideration will have to be
given to additional training for that officer and to supporting them to operate
at the level that is expected.[35]
1.29
The current proposal, with a wage increase of two per cent, was being
negotiated at the time of the hearing and the department informed the committee
it meant a reduction of 680 employees. Further productivity savings would also be
needed.[36]
Riot on Christmas Island
1.30
Another matter raised with ABF was the issue of the riot that occurred
at the Christmas Island detention centre on 9 November 2015. The Commissioner
informed the committee that the investigation was being conducted by the
Australian Federal Police (AFP) in relation to the conduct of any alleged
criminal acts during the riot. An internal review, conducted by the service
provider Serco, and the department's Integrity, Security and Assurance
Division, had proposed recommendations in relation to intelligence, better
governance arrangements and hardening of the facilities, and were in the
process of being implemented by ABF.[37]
1.31
The cost of repairs to the facility came to $10 million, with $3.4
million expended on rectification, and an estimated amount of $7.6 million
would go towards full recovery of the facility.[38]
These improvements would include:
Installation of security gates over a range of roller doors;
some more heavy-duty furniture and the attachment of the furniture; other
shutters, particularly around medical facilities; security screening; fencing;
an upgrade of the inner perimeter fence.[39]
1.32
The committee was informed that the facility is now fully operational,
however not all detainees have been, and potentially would not be, returned to
the facility.[40]
At the time of the riot, there were 'around 200 detainees'[41]
and approximately 180 of those people participated, 50 of which were New
Zealand citizens.[42]
One detainee managed to escape[43]
during the riot and the committee heard that Serco had conducted a review on
the convergence of circumstances that led to the detainees escape.[44]
Operation Sovereign Borders
1.33
Major General Bottrell of Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB) informed the
committee in his opening statement that during the last two years of OSB
operations, they had 'seen the successful return of 23 boats and more than 680
people to their country of departure'.[45]
For more than 560 days, no boat has successfully entered into Australia's
migration zone.[46]
1.34
During the hearing it was discussed that since the October 2015 round of
estimates hearings, there had been two turn-backs in November 2015, one of
which came close to Christmas Island. There were 17 people on one boat, and
three on the other. Both boats had departed from Indonesia.[47]
1.35
Questions were asked in relation to UNHCR registered refugees residing
in Indonesia. The Secretary advised the committee that:
[The department's] preference is to take such persons from
the Middle East and other places. Now that we have defeated the boats, the next
pull factor becomes getting to Indonesia because there is another way to, if
you like, queue yourself into Australia so the policy position remains one of
assisting Indonesia. We work with Indonesian authorities. We work with the [International
Organisation on Migration] to make sure that people in Indonesia are as
comfortable as circumstances can be and that they are given durable options to
apply for settlement places in the appropriate manner. But our focus at the
moment is really to focus on refugees from the Middle East and elsewhere but
not those who have travelled to Indonesia for the conscious purpose of getting
on a boat to come to Australia, which is a path that is now blocked.[48]
1.36
When asked about how OSB communicates its policy position regarding
Australia's border control operations to deter illegal maritime arrivals,
Major General Bottrell said that OSB strategic communication is based
on fact and focused on four key messages:
-
highlighting the hazardous nature of the journey;
-
the financial risk taken to engage with people smugglers;
-
the deception and lies of people smugglers; and
-
the consequences of illegal migration to Australia.[49]
1.37
This communication strategy was delivered across 13 countries and in 18
different languages via television, radio, press, online and social media,
billboards, transit advertising, roadshows, leaflets, stickers and community
workshops.[50]
Other matters of interest
1.38
A wide range of other matters were also canvassed. These included:
-
the Doogan review relating to the dismissal of Save the Children
staff;[51]
-
the reduction of incidents of self-harm in onshore and offshore
detention facilities;[52]
-
the status of the resettlement of 12 000 Syrian refugees;[53]
-
$9.864 million spent on ABF rebadging;[54]
-
the cancellation of visas based on character assessments (section
501 of the Migration Act 1958);[55]
and
-
an update on the visa status of the 30 000 legacy caseload.[56]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page