Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the second report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Immigration detention in Australia: Community-based alternatives to detention—Report, May 2009. I had the opportunity to speak on 2 December 2008 in relation to the first report of the committee, Immigration detention in Australia: A new beginning—criteria for release from detention, which dealt with the criteria which should be applied in determining how long a person should be held in immigration detention and when a person should be released from immigration detention following health and security checks, and a review mechanism for ongoing detention, removal practices and detention costs. I am pleased to say that, since that report, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, has introduced the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009. I congratulate the minister for introducing that bill at such a pace, to take into account the recommendations in the committee’s first report.

Today I am speaking in relation to the second report on community based alternatives to detention. There are a number of recommendations that the committee has brought down in relation to this report. Importantly, I should first outline what this report seeks to address. The terms of reference specifically being dealt with in this report include:

• options for additional community-based alternatives to immigration detention by

(a)

inquiring into international experience;

(b)

considering the manner in which such alternatives may be utilised in Australia to broaden the options available within the current immigration detention framework;

(c)

comparing the cost effectiveness of these alternatives with current options.

The third report, to be tabled in 2009, will address service provision and the infrastructure required to support the immigration detention framework for the future. The recommendations that have been handed down in this report certainly support the position of the Rudd Labor government and the principles that have been outlined by the minister to taking a risk based approach, with detention as an option of last resort.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will take you through some of the key recommendations that come out of this report. The first, and I believe one of the most important, is the recommendation for the government to:

… reform the bridging visa framework to comprehensively support those released into the community, with appropriate reporting or surety requirements.

The committee heard considerable evidence in this inquiry about the substantive flaws in the current visa system, particularly the way bridging visas are applied to those asylum seekers and the criteria attached to those bridging visas. This evidence led to a number of the other recommendations relating to the committee’s belief that the bridging visa framework needs to be completely reformed. The fundamental issue is that, although bridging visas are being given to unlawful noncitizens upon release from detention centres, the reality is the majority of bridging visas that are provided or issued to these unlawful noncitizens do not allow for their ability to work. That is the fundamental issue: we are releasing people from detention and, in effect, potentially condemning them to destitution in our communities.

Except for those who have the ability to financially support themselves or have family that can financially support them, these people are released into the community with, in many cases, no housing, no right to work, no right to welfare entitlements and no right to access any subsidised health care. Consequently, what these people reported to the committee—in personal cases that were expressed to the committee in submissions and in evidence but also from many organisations that speak on behalf of these people—is that they have to live off charity. They have to beg. They have to go from place to place to try to get food and to try to get shelter. Many of these people have children, so this is affecting not only adults in our community but also children. The only way to describe it is that they are living in total despair. It is in this context that the committee believed it was appropriate—more than appropriate; absolutely essential—that we recommend that the bridging visa framework be reformed to provide basic rights. One of those rights is, of course, the right to work. That is outlined in recommendation 10, where the committee recommends that the Australian government:

… reform the bridging visa framework to grant all adults on bridging visas permission to work, conditional on compliance with reporting requirements and attendance at review and court hearings.

In recommendation 8, the committee recommends that there be:

• basic income assistance that is means-tested
• access to necessary health care
• assistance in sourcing appropriate temporary accommodation and basic furnishing needs, and provision of information about tenancy rights and responsibilities and Australian household management, where applicable …

This goes only to part of the recommendations.

There is an assumption in the community and at levels of government that, if we allow people to have work rights and give them basic, humane entitlements to be able to support themselves and their family, they will be less likely to return if they are unsuccessful in their application to obtain residency in Australia. But, in fact, all of the evidence brought before the committee from people who have been personally affected and from many organisations that represent these people shows quite the opposite. These people are not destitute. They are able to work and provide their family with a roof over their heads, food on the table and clothes. They have more confidence and higher self-esteem. Consequently, they have the ability to deal with their applications. They are able to more readily make decisions that are suitable for them and their family and to consider the advice being given to them in relation to any appeals process or decisions made. This is much harder for the people who are worrying about how they are going to survive—how they are going to feed themselves and where they are going to sleep that night. That is certainly the evidence we have heard.

The recommendation clearly from the committee is that there is no need for community detention. Once the appropriate health, identity and risk assessments that were outlined in the first report have been done then a person should be released into the community and be able to remain in the community until such time as their application has been considered and a decision has been made one way or the other. Certainly this is what this report is all about: once those assessments are done, as outlined in the first report, what do we do with the unlawful noncitizens? What is the appropriate and humane way to deal with these people who have arrived in our country until such time as our processes have been completed and these people have been given a definitive outcome to their application? What the committee, in the main, agreed to do was to release these people into the community and give them basic rights—fair and reasonable rights in my opinion—that allow them to have a reasonable quality of life until such time as the processes are finalised.

I note there are a number of minority reports. The member for Murray has put in a minority report. That is quite surprising because the member for Murray’s minority report seems to say that she does not believe these people should be released into the community—that, in fact, they should remain in detention until such time as any appeal process or application has been finalised. This clearly flies in the face of the first report, which the member for Murray actually supported. I am very surprised about the decision made by the member for Murray. I hope it is not a position that is going to be reflected more widely when this government seeks to implement the recommendations put forward by this committee. I take the chamber to the minority report of the member for Murray. It states in paragraph 1.14:

A better alternative for those unlawful non-citizens currently in detention as they seek a resolution to their asylum seeker status is for DIAC to commit every possible resource to resolving the individual’s status, with additional resources committed to do this work if required.

Those commitments have been made. In fact, additional commitments were made in the 2009 budget, which I will talk about shortly. The member for Murray goes on to say:

If their claim is rejected, the individual should continue to be detained in one of the excellent transit facilities until swiftly deported. If they choose to appeal, they should remain in detention until the appeal is resolved. Where the individual’s claim is successful, they would then be swiftly transitioned out of detention into the community to begin their new life, with no ambiguity about their status remaining.

That, in my view, contradicts the position taken by the member for Murray in the first report where the majority, including the member for Murray, supported the view that upon the health, identity and risk assessment being done people should be released from detention and that detention should be a matter of last resort.

I would like to acknowledge the announcements made by this government in the 2009 budget where the Rudd Labor government has committed to an additional $14 million for the assisted voluntary return program. This encourages and facilitates those found not to meet the criteria for entering into Australia to return home. That was certainly one of the recommendations out of this second report. In recommendation 7 the committee recommended:

… that the Australian Government establish a voluntary repatriation program, similar to that run by the International Organisation for Migration through the Community Care Pilot, which can be accessed by all people whether in detention or released on a bridging visa.

It is certainly welcoming to have the government make those announcements in its 2009 budget in addition to increased funding for programs to assist those granted asylum and $77 million in funding over the next four years to support the use of risk based detention policy focusing on a timely resolution.

In conclusion, I record my thanks for and acknowledgement of the extensive and thorough work done by the committee chair, Michael Danby. I would like to make special mention of the secretariat for all their work and the great work of the deputy chair, Danna Vale. I commend the second report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and look forward to speaking on the third report.

See this speech in context