Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The responses have all been positive. That is what I was saying. The government responded swiftly to these recommendations by introducing the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 in the Senate on 18 March. As I noted in my previous speech, our report was concluded before the Treasurer delivered the budget speech on 12 May which allocated $14 million for the assisted voluntary return program that encourages and facilitates those found not to meet the criteria for entry to Australia to return home. There is also more money in the budget for programs to assist those granted asylum to adjust. Some of the recommendations in this second report have already been addressed by the government in the budget. The government’s forthcoming changes to migration legislation will put one of the particularly odious policies of the previous conservative government, detention debt, behind us.

However, despite the changes to both policy and administrative culture in recent times, we can and must do better. The committee has therefore chosen to focus this report on the conditions and material support for release into the community, including appropriate options for community based alternatives to secure detention. At the outset, the committee recognises that secure detention will continue to play a role in our immigration system and will remain part of our immigration policy. The evidence suggests, however, that it is not necessary to keep people who meet the criteria for release in secure detention for long periods of time awaiting resolution of their immigration status. Open residential accommodation in the community can provide people with a safe and supportive living environment while still being accessible to immigration and other service providers. Community based alternatives can be much more cost effective than the current high levels of physical security or on-site staffing required in an immigration detention centre.

The committee’s first report explored the potential damage long-term detention had on people. The harsh psychological burdens inflicted by long periods in detention has been attested to by members of the previous government and this government. In addition, restrictions on income, work and health care for community based bridging visa holders are known to have harmful long-term effects on those involved. We have seen that a more supportive living environment maintains the physical and mental wellbeing of those awaiting a decision and that this can facilitate a smooth transition into the Australian community, if there is a positive outcome or, indeed, repatriation.

The committee’s central recommendation is that the Australian government reform the bridging visa framework to comprehensively support those released into the community with appropriate reporting of surety requirements. The committee recommended that the government utilise this proposed reformed bridging visa framework in lieu of community detention until a person’s immigration status is resolved and review the cases of those currently on residence determinations. The committee also suggested that there should be improved transparency in immigration decision making, including access to legal advice and improved access to voluntary return counselling in order to support the provision of information to the client and to help them decide what is going on for the best and most realistic outcome for themselves and their families. The committee also recognised that there are basic rights, such as access to appropriate health care, housing and income, that should be afforded to all people regardless of their immigration status. As to recommendation 4, which was focused on by the member for Kooyong, I note that the last paragraph of the recommendation says that after they have received reasons in writing for their refusal:

• the person has a reasonable time limit, up to 21 days, in which to seek merits review of that refusal, commensurate with those that apply to visa applicants in the community.

That is a very good thing. The committee recommended that the Australian government ensure that people have basic income assistance that is means-tested; access to necessary health care; assistance in sourcing appropriate temporary accommodation and community orientation information; and, in addition, that children are provided with safe and appropriate accommodation, with basic necessities such as adequate food and with primary and secondary schooling. Where case resolution is ongoing the committee also recommended that the government reform the bridging visa framework to grant people permission to work.

I would like to express my appreciation for my hard-working colleagues on the committee including the deputy chair and member for Hughes, Danna Vale, all of the senators and members, particularly the members for Makin and Petrie who were here this afternoon, as well as the member for Kooyong who very passionately expresses his views, and who has come up and spoken here on the committee’s report today to explain his dissenting report. All of those mentioned committed to ensuring our immigration system treats all people, regardless of their status, in a humane and compassionate manner, while protecting Australia’s borders and ensuring the continuing existence of our robust immigration program.

I also note that, despite a considerable effort to achieve consensus, a number of minority reports were generated. Of particular note is the ‘diversity of opinion’, as the member for Makin explained, of those minority reports from the members of the opposition. The member for Murray and shadow minister for immigration, having supported the committee’s endorsement of Labor’s detention policy in December 2008, has now—it seems for political reasons—refused to endorse this new report. However, other opposition members of the committee have failed to follow their spokesperson on immigration. The member for Hughes supported the report for which I thank her. The member for Kooyong has explained his views here today and I note his constructive and positive remarks about much of the committee’s report.

I would like to conclude by responding to some of the comments made by the shadow minister for immigration, Dr Sharman Stone, which criticise this report. Firstly, it is baseless to claim that the government’s changes in policy on asylum seekers have resulted in a flood of asylum seekers. To hear her speak and to read some of the tabloid newspapers, you would think that 350 boats rather than about 350 people had arrived in Australia since the beginning of the year. The International Crisis Group’s recent report in May 2009 cited 70 ongoing conflicts around the world. As the member for Makin correctly put it, ‘Haven’t we seen terrible events in Sri Lanka and the continuing conflict in Afghanistan contribute to people genuinely seeking asylum in Australia? Why wouldn’t you, if you were in their terrible circumstances, seek refuge in Australia or other countries?

The member for Murray in her speech on the report’s tabling and in a subsequent media release explained some of the reasons why she differed from the majority view and has instead written a minority report. One of the reasons proffered for the official opposition failing to support the majority was that the member for Murray claimed that the report recommended that ‘people in detention be released into the Australian community prior to completion of identity and security checks’. In a separate paragraph in her media statement she unequivocally stated that ‘The majority of the committee, chaired by Labor backbencher Michael Danby, recommended that unlawful noncitizens be diverted out of detention before their security and identification checks were completed.’ I find this rather strange as nowhere in the report are such recommendations made.

It is possible that the shadow minister has mixed up the current report with the December 2008 report the focus of which was on the examination of criteria for release from detention. In that report it was envisaged that, under certain very specific and restricted circumstances, people should be released from detention before security and identity checks have been completed.

I will quote part of recommendations 3 and 4 as I seem to have sufficient time. Recommendation 3 begins:

The Committee recommends that, in line with a risk-based approach and where a person’s identity is not conclusively established within 90 days, the Australian Government develop mechanisms (such as a particular class of bridging visa) to enable a conditional release from detention.

Recommendation 4 of the report begins:

The Committee recommends that, in line with a risk-based approach, and where a person’s security assessment is ongoing after 90 days of detention, the Australian Government develop mechanisms (such as a particular class of bridging visa) to enable a conditional release from detention. Conditions could include stringent reporting requirements to ensure ongoing availability for immigration and/or security processes.

In reading these recommendations it becomes obvious that in her speech the shadow immigration minister twisted the committee’s recommendations beyond recognition. The member for Murray knew her statements were disingenuous, but she is content to play politics when she knows the recommendations were made on the basis of empirical evidence and rational discussion and decision. What makes the shadow minister’s comments even more suspect is that, while writing her own minority report around this time, she in fact endorsed the previous report which was the source of the recommendations that she was criticising. In my view, this is opportunism plain and simple.

Under the current government, Australia’s border protection system maintains our security while ensuring unauthorised arrivals and other immigrants are treated humanely. The different positions displayed by the opposition show that at this time the opposition’s policies are in a mess. I commend the report to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Simpkins) adjourned.

See this speech in context