Additional Comments – Australian Greens
1.1
The Australian Greens wish to express concern about the nature of
responses from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP, the
department) in relation to questions about refugees and the Manus and Nauru
regional processing centres (RPCs) during the estimates process.
1.2
Estimates hearings provide an opportunity for all senators to scrutinise
taxpayer-funded expenditure by government departments.
1.3
While questions are asked by individual senators, responses provided
assist the committee and the Senate to carry out their important scrutiny
function.
1.4
Throughout the course of the budget estimates hearings, as well as in
responses to questions on notice, DIBP have refused to answer a number of
questions placed by Australian Greens senators and have frequently relied on
previous claims of public interest immunity (PII).
Shooting at Manus on Good Friday
1.5
Over the course of budget estimates, the department was asked many
questions about the events that took place on Manus Island on Good Friday this
year (14 April 2017). The Australian Greens consider the answers provided are
incomplete evidence concerning these events.
1.6
Regarding this incident, the department put a number of facts on the
record during the estimates hearing of 22 May 2017, including that 'quite a
number' of shots were fired laterally into the RPC and that nine people were
injured. As Mr Pezzullo told the committee:
I think, based on what is now known-as opposed to what might
have been known in the first hour or two of the incident-it appears as though,
and I say that with a very strong caveat, dependent on the inquiries that are
currently on foot and what they turn up, the number of weapons employed was
greater than one.
...Again, subject to relying on PNG inquiries to establish that
as a matter of fact, it appears as though, in light of the information that
subsequently has become available, as opposed to what might have been available
in the first hour or two, some shots, quite a number it seems, were fired
laterally into the compound-yes...[1]
1.7
Regarding the number of injuries sustained, the department stated that:
The advice that I have to hand at the moment is that nine
personnel were injured. None of those were serious injuries, as I understand. Five of those were service provider personnel, one was a PNG
Defence Force officer, one was an Immigration and Citizenship Service Authority
officer and two were residents from within the MRPC.[2]
1.8
On 14 April 2017, immediately following the incident, the department
released information to Fairfax, which now appears to be inaccurate, and played
down the seriousness of the shootings:
There are reports PNG military personnel discharged a weapon
into the air during the incident. No-one was injured.[3]
1.9
The Australian Greens are concerned that, as at the budget estimates
hearing of 22 May 2017, the information provided to Fairfax on 14 April
2017 had still had not been corrected on the department's website page
'Correcting the Record', more than one month after the incident took place.
Furthermore, it seems as if Minister Dutton has not acknowledged the seriousness
of the attack, including that a significant number of staff or residents of the
MRPC were injured.[4]
1.10
The Australian Greens are concerned that the department and Minister
have allowed innuendo and insinuation to persist regarding the behaviour of RPC
residents. It seems the department indicated to the Minister that the trigger
for the shooting was an incident in which a young local boy was guided into the
centre by some residents, which the Minister later cited publicly.[5]
1.11
The Australian Greens note that the local police have been clear—both
publicly and privately—that this incident had 'nothing at all to do with the
Good Friday shootings'.[6]
1.12
It is therefore of some concern that the Minister and his department
have not corrected this information, which has allowed innuendo and insinuation
to persist about the behaviour of some RPC residents in this incident.
1.13
Lastly, the Australian Greens are concerned that Mr Pezzullo suggested
to the committee that the Papua New Guinean defence and police forces were
inquiring into this matter, and so it was not a matter for investigation for
the Commonwealth:
In the circumstances, given the seriousness of the matter,
the best course of action, and one that I thoroughly endorse, is to then await
the conclusion of the two relevant inquiries—one is a military justice inquiry
and the other is a criminal justice inquiry in the civil jurisdiction—and,
then, if we have got more to say at that point, we will say more at that point.[7]
1.14
The Australian Greens consider that the Minister and department have
abrogated Australian responsibility in this matter, both in allowing incorrect
and misleading information to persist, and by not investigating the incident
sufficiently. This is especially considering the injuries sustained by
employees and contractors working to sustain the Commonwealth's immigration
policies, as well as several victims of these policies who are resident in the
Manus RPC.
Relying on previous claims of public interest immunity
1.15
The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has received
only one PII claim from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in
relation to estimates during the 45th Parliament. This claim was
received by the committee on 21 October 2016 and related to a question from
Senator Nick McKim at the supplementary budget estimates hearing on 17 October
2016, regarding the third-country resettlement of refugees in RPCs.
1.16
Throughout the budget estimates hearing on 22 May 2017, DIBP referred to
that previous PII claim often when matters concerning Operation Sovereign
Borders were raised.[8]
1.17
At one point during the hearing, officers chose not to answer questions
on boat turn-backs and made reference to that previous PII claim.[9]
1.18
The secretary of the department stated that he was making a PII claim
and that it was his view that the matter did not need to be referred the
minister, as the minister had made a previous claim in relation to Operation
Sovereign Borders maritime activities.[10]
The question was not pursued by the committee at the hearing or taken on notice
by the department.
1.19
Under Procedural Order of Continuing Effect 10, an officer must refer a
question to the minister on the request of the committee or a senator, and that
is a matter for the minister to provide grounds to the committee.
1.20
While that claim included a general statement that 'the government does
not believe it is in the public interest to release information that may
compromise Operation Sovereign Borders and foreign relations', it did not set
out a specific claim relating to questions on boat turn-backs and was related
only to third-country resettlements.
1.21
Therefore, the Australian Greens do not consider that this previous
claim has any relevance to the questions posed in relation to boat turn-backs.
Relying on a claim made to another
committee
1.22
The Australian Greens also wish to note two responses to DIBP questions
on notice from additional estimates received by the committee.
1.23
Responses to questions on notice AE17/220 and AE17/221, questions from
Senator McKim related to the resettlement of refugees in RPCs, did not provide
answers and relied on a PII claim made to another committee. The responses both
stated that the department would not:
... disclose details of confidential discussions with other
governments as it would disclose information captured by the public interest
immunity claim made by the Minister for Immigration and
Border Protection on 7 January 2017.[11]
1.24
The Australian Greens note that the claim made by the Minister for
Immigration and Border Protection on 7 January 2017 was made to the Legal and
Constitutional Affairs References Committee, in relation to that committee's
inquiry into regional processing centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.
1.25
It is the view of the Australian Greens that a PII claim made to another
committee should not be referred to for the purpose of estimates and that any
such claim must be stated to the relevant estimates committee.
Conclusion
1.26
While the Australian Greens note that answers to questions taken on
notice during the budget estimates hearings are not due until 7 July 2017, the
department is reminded that the Senate has on several occasions resolved that
there are no areas of expenditure of public funds by statutory authorities which
are not open to scrutiny.
1.27
If the department is unable to provide Senators with answers to their
questions for reasons of public interest immunity, a claim for this immunity
should follow from the minister, in accordance with the requirements of Procedural
Order of Continuing Effect 10.
Senator Nick McKim
Australian Greens
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page