CHAPTER 1
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP PORTFOLIO
1.1
This chapter summarises some of the matters raised during the
committee's consideration of the additional estimates for the Immigration and
Citizenship Portfolio for the 2012-13 financial year.
Migration Review Tribunal – Refugee Review Tribunal (MRT–RRT)
1.2
The Principal Member of the MRT-RRT, Ms Kay Ransome, highlighted
developments within the organisation since its last appearance before the
committee at Supplementary Budget Estimates in October 2012. Ms Ransome
informed the committee of workload statistics and strategies to deal with an
increased workload, including the adoption of a specialisation model in case
allocations, which was assessed by an interim review to be a success and has
resulted in increased productivity.[1]
1.3
The Principal Member advised that the MRT-RRT are on track to determine
significantly more cases than the tribunals were able to in 2011-12, with an
increase of 57 per cent more cases decided than in the same period in the
previous financial year. In line with this upward trajectory, in 2011-12 the
MRT-RRT reported an overall increase in applications of 30 per cent; this trend
has continued with a
43 per cent increase in lodgements in the first six months of this financial
year.[2]
1.4
In relation to the portfolio additional estimates statement, the
committee sought an explanation of how an additional $4.663 million in
allocated funding is to be spent. The committee was informed that the extra
funding is to cover approximately 2,500 additional cases that the MRT-RRT has
finalised this year, above the base funding for 8,300 cases.[3]
1.5
The committee was also advised that some of the recommendations in the
Lavarch review are yet to be implemented, including: conferral of a
discretionary power to dismiss a matter if a person does not attend a hearing;
and legislating for tribunals to give reasons for a decision orally rather than
in writing, unless otherwise requested by an applicant.[4]
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
1.6
The Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC),
Mr Martin Bowles PSM, gave an overview of developments in the portfolio since
Supplementary Budget Estimates in October 2012. Mr Bowles covered statistical
information on the various migration programs, a new online system for
selecting independent skilled migrants, progress on the implementation of the
recommendations of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, updates on the regional
facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, and the numbers and profiles of
asylum seekers currently residing at regional processing centres.[5]
Irregular maritime arrivals and
budget implications
1.7
The committee sought an explanation on why the budgeted item for
Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) has been lower than the additional estimates
for the
2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 financial years. Specifically, the committee
sought an explanation as to how the irregular maritime arrival caseload could
be resolved into the future with a reduced budget for the 2014-15 and 2015-16
financial years.[6]
1.8
The Secretary of DIAC explained that, due to the fluctuating nature of
arrivals, the May 2012 Budget allocation has had to be revised in subsequent
estimates to accommodate the changed circumstances. Further, since the number
of arrivals is one component of the estimates process and not all arrivals are
treated in the same way, the budgeted figure cannot remain static:
The budget that we had in the PBS for 2012-13 was $1.3
billion and the additional estimates statement for [outcome] 4.3 was $2.124
billion—an increase of $1.1 billion-odd. That, obviously, in the context of
[outcome] 4.3, is to deal with the increase in the numbers. The budget was
set...in May last year. Then we saw a spike that happened around the May time
frame and there was a need at the additional estimates, and in fact in the
supplementary estimates some of this came through to increase the budget for
2012-13. Hence that is what you are seeing as a change. This is a normal
process. It is not unusual. If the activity in this space changes we do go back
a number of times during the year, and one of them is now, and then obviously
the budget. If you move that forward, yes, it does reduce from 2012-13 to
2013-14. But you will also notice it is an increase from the PBS to the
additional estimates, recognising that the figure in the PBS was still in need
of some improvement, if you like, based on the activity.
...
And then there is a reduction on the premise that, once we
implement the recommendations of the expert panel, these numbers will reduce in
the out years. So that is the premise for the budget. We would revise that
again in the context of the budget if that were required.[7]
1.9
The Secretary also explained that the budget calculations are influenced
by a number of other factors:
...It is not as simple as to say that everyone who turns up you
treat the same way. It is based on arrivals, obviously, but it is also their
length of stay, if you like, within the detention network. That is obviously
across multiple streams—held detention, community detention and the bridging
visa system—and there are varying cost differentials if you are in there.
Obviously we will want to take into account a range of other factors like
family size, security, health requirements and, of course, the location of
facilities. Some locations are obviously more expensive than others if they are
in difficult-to-get-to places. That policy position has changed quite a bit
over the last 12 to 18 months, because we were in a situation where the
majority of people were in held detention. We have already seen a shift in the
numbers of people in the detention system since late last year, [with] record
numbers in November. We are down to approximately 5½ thousand people in the
detention network as we sit today. So it is not quite as simple as just saying
'because the numbers go up'. I appreciate though that, when the numbers do
escalate, we need to respond. We responded between the PBS and the additional
estimates and obviously in the context of if there were no further improvement,
we would need to think about that in the context of the budget.[8]
Enterprise Migration Agreements
1.10
In response to the committee's questions about the Enterprise Migration
Agreements (EMAs), DIAC officials informed the committee that it has received
four applications to date, including the Roy Hill application which has been
agreed to
in-principle. There are two sections within DIAC looking after labour
agreements, one dealing with resource labour agreements and the other with
non-resources labour agreements. The committee was also advised that there are
11 full-time staff working in the resource labour agreement section, 5.3 of
whom work on the enterprise migration agreement applications.[9]
Security assessment processes for
IMAs and bridging visas
1.11
DIAC representatives updated the committee on the number of adverse
security assessments made by ASIO. Of the 32,795 IMAs which have arrived since
2007, 63 have received an adverse assessment since 2009, with 55 of those in
detention in Australia and the remaining eight having been relocated to a third
country.[10]
DIAC clarified the figures in relation to the number of adverse security
assessments which have been made:
Senator
CASH:...the ASIO Report to Parliament 2011-12 states that
ASIO continues to identify individuals of security concern, that since 2009,
ASIO has issued 63 adverse security assessments in relation to IMAs. Why is
there the difference between the 55 that you are referring to and the 63 that
ASIO have said that they have issued?
...
Mr
Bowles:
[ASIO's] assessment says 63 clients, comprising 51 IMA clients and 12 Oceanic
Viking clients. Of the 12 Oceanic Viking clients, eight have been
resettled in a third country.
Senator
CASH: Have any people with a negative security assessment from
ASIO been released into the community?
Mr
Bowles:
No.
Senator
CASH: In Australia?
Mr
Bowles:
No.
Senator
CASH: Have they been given protection visas?
Mr
Bowles:
No, they are what we call '1A met'. They are recognised as a refugee, but they
have never progressed past that to be granted a protection visa and they are
held in detention.[11]
Other matters of interest
1.12
A wide range of other matters were also canvassed. These included:
-
the costs of international charter flights to regional processing
centres;[12]
- the delivery cost and participation rate in relation to the Adult
Migrant English Program;[13]
- staffing numbers, including for airline liaison officers;[14]
- the cost of the Ethics Bytes modules produced by the Office of
the Migration Agents Registration Authority;[15]
- the take-up rate and use of the online system SkillSelect by
potential migrants and employers;[16]
- the treatment of detention centre residents and media access to
Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea;[17]
-
the level of intelligence and data exchange between the Sri
Lankan and Australian governments;[18]
and
- an update on the Community Placement Network.[19]
1.13
The committee was also informed that Australia Day 2013 saw a record
number of more than 17,000 people become citizens in ceremonies held around the
country. It is anticipated that by the end of the current program year, around
150,000 people will become Australian citizens, 40,000 more than last year.[20]
Answers to questions on notice
1.14
The committee again notes DIAC's lack of timeliness in providing answers
to questions on notice for the Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio. Almost
three hundred responses to questions on notice from the Supplementary Budget
Estimates 2012-13 round remain outstanding.
1.15
The Secretary acknowledged that DIAC will commit to improving its
performance in this area, and explained the lack of timeliness in the context
of an increased burden of work:
I accept that we need to improve our performance in this
area. I just want to give some context, though, about what we are dealing with.
We have actually seen a 500 per cent increase in questions on notice in the
last couple of years.
...
I accept and I acknowledge that there is a growing interest
in our business, and all I can try to commit is that we will try and improve on
this; but we do have to make sure that we get the right answer. We deal with 34
million border crossings and 4.5 million visa issues and all sorts of different
things, and some of these questions go to quite specific issues.[21]
1.16
The committee notes that none of the answers to questions on notice for
Supplementary Budget Estimates 2012-13 were provided by the due date set by the
committee, and only just over half of the answers (54 per cent) have been
answered as at the date of tabling of this report. The committee expects to see
an improvement in the timeliness of answers provided by DIAC in future
estimates rounds.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page