CHAPTER 2
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP PORTFOLIO
Introduction
2.1
This chapter summarises areas of interest and concern raised during the
committee's consideration of the budget estimates for the Immigration and
Citizenship portfolio for the 2009-10 financial year.
Migration Agents Registration Authority
2.2
The committee asked a number of questions in relation to the final
stages of Migration Agents Registration Authority's (MARA) absorption within
the department, which is to take effect from 1 July 2009. The committee was
told that 26 MARA staff had been invited to submit their job descriptions to
the Department, 19 had received offers of employment and 17 appointments were
confirmed.[1]
2.3
The committee also questioned officers about MARA’s operating surplus of
‘$3 to $4 million’ concerning the ownership of the money and the proposed use
after the merger. The Minister stated:
MARA is the government regulatory authority and, as I
understand it, these are Commonwealth funds we are debating. Any question about
what might be done with those or other Commonwealth funds is a decision for the
Commonwealth government.[2]
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Outcomes structure and staffing
2.4
In his opening statement, the Department's Secretary, Mr Andrew
Metcalfe, outlined the Department’s new outcome and program structure, which is
a result of changes made to the reporting arrangements as part of Operation
Sunlight.[3]
The new structure can be found at Appendix 5.
2.5
The committee sought information concerning the department’s reported
staff reductions of 10 per cent. The Secretary advised the committee that the
department was expected to reduce staffing numbers over the year ahead but at a
lower level than that reported, commenting that 'the one in 10 article that appeared
in the media was made up by someone. I do not know where that came from.'[4]
2.6
The Secretary gave a detailed explanation of the reasons for the
reductions:
A range of measures in the budget, such as the Gershon review
relating to IT, are seeking savings from the department’s IT expenditure.
Conversely, part of that strategy has been to reduce the number of consultants
and contractors that we use and to replace them with full-time staff. While we
are making savings, some of that is reducing contracted numbers but increasing
our own employees. Like all agencies we are subject to the normal efficiency
dividend, so that has an impact on us as well.
There are a range of other savings measures or measures that
needed to be absorbed by the portfolio. Another significant driver of our
financial position is described as activity levels under our resourcing agreement
with the Department of Finance.[5]
Residency tests
2.7
The committee also questioned officers in relation to the changes that
are in train for the test applied to applicants for permanent residency in
respect of serious health conditions that have the potential to cost the public
health system more than $21 000.[6]
Officers explained that negotiations are underway with state governments to
raise the threshold of the test to $100 000, on the basis that it is state
governments that bear the majority of health costs. The new arrangements are
already in place in the ACT, Victoria and Western Australia.[7]
Unauthorised arrivals
2.8
Senators sought information about the rise in unauthorised boat arrivals
since last year, and the factors that have contributed to this.[8]
Mr Metcalfe addressed this issue:
To only look at the picture from an Australian perspective is
missing probably 95 per cent of the story. The real story is what is happening
in terms of global refugee matters; stability in key areas; protection for
people in places near their homes, such as Pakistan, and whether that is
effective; the role of people smugglers; the ability to cooperate with countries
of transit, such as Malaysia and Indonesia; and the fact that, although we
certainly receive numbers of refugee applicants in Australia, what we see here
is tiny compared with other countries.[9]
2.9
Senators also asked about research undertaken into what factors
encourage or deter people to seek to come to Australia.[10]
The committee was told that there was a specific budget measure of $810 000 to
improve capacity which will increase the department’s capability to do research
in this area.[11]
The committee also asked questions about the people smuggling taskforce and
the range of interviews conducted with illegal entrants by a range of agencies.
Non provision of information and public interest immunity
2.10
As was the case during consideration of the Estimates for the
Attorney-General's portfolio, there were a number of occasions when officers or
the Minister declined to provide information.
2.11
The Department refused to supply advice to government regarding the
number of extra refugee tribunal members needed to deal with its workload. The
Department referred the matter to the Minister who did not make a claim of
public interest immunity but stated that such advice is never provided to
committee:
Senator Chris Evans—Departments do not give Senate
estimates advice that has been provided to government. The Senate order does
not change any of those things. That deals with documents in a public interest
defence. No public interest defence has been advanced here. The officer made
clear that the selection panel, as described by the secretary, has reported to
government. The government is in the process of making a decision and that will
be publicly announced when the decision has been made.[12]
2.12
The committee revisited the issue on two occasions later in the hearings,
where the Minister reiterated his position:
Senator Chris Evans—I do not need to take it on
notice, Senator Barnett. This is advice to government for consideration by
cabinet. It has not been provided in the past, will not be provided now, and
you can take it as a formal rejection. The government will not be providing you
details of advice for decisions by cabinet, full stop.[13]
...
Senator Chris Evans—Let me just be clear to you. What
the department has provided me with is a submission which is to be taken to
cabinet. It will be a cabinet document. Will I be releasing it to you? No. Will
I be discussing its contents? No. I have been very clear about this. You may
not like the answer and you may get advice that says I should. This will be a
cabinet document and a cabinet decision. You raise the public interest criteria
defence and the Senate’s motion in relation to that. I am not claiming the
public interest defence. I am making it clear to you that it is a cabinet
document. Neither I nor any other ministers, I suggest, will be releasing or
discussing the contents of advice to the cabinet....I am happy to defend the
process and the decisions with you when they are made, but this is a document
that has been provided as advice to cabinet for decision and appointment by
cabinet. I will not have officers discussing the content of that—not the
numbers, who is recommended, what states they are from. It is a submission to
cabinet. I do not, quite frankly, care what the Attorney-General’s Department
does. I will not, and my officers will not, be discussing submissions to
cabinet at estimates. Under the previous government they would not have,
either.[14]
2.13
During consideration of the Immigration and Citizenship portfolio,
questions were asked about the protocol for interviewing asylum seekers. The
Secretary of the Department, Mr Metcalfe, objected to answering the question in
the following terms:
Mr Metcalfe—Senator, I think there is a very strong
public interest as to why in public evidence before this committee we would not
disclose operational methods designed to combat people smuggling. Otherwise
people who are engaged in people smuggling will look at what we do and devise
countermeasures. What is very clear from many years of practice in this area is
that people smugglers are smart criminals; they alter their tactics to respond
to Australian and international measures.[15]
2.14
The committee accepted Mr Metcalfe's explanation and did not persist
with the question.
Senator Trish Crossin
Committee Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page