Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak tonight on the second report of the inquiry into immigration detention by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. In May last year, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, requested that the committee inquire into and report on immigration detention in Australia. The committee’s first report was tabled last December and it addressed the duration of and means of release from immigration detention. That first report made a number of valuable suggestions and I, together with fellow committee members Senator Alan Eggleston and Senator Hanson-Young, approved of those recommendations but dissented from its proposal of a model that allowed people to be held in detention for 12 months without any independent judicial oversight. We proposed an alternative model which includes judicial review.

As yet, the government has not responded fully to the recommendations of the committee’s first report, but I do acknowledge and congratulate the government for taking steps to implement the committee’s recommendations calling for the abolition of detention debt. The imposition of a fee for incarceration has been one of the unacceptable features of Australia’s mandatory detention regime—a regime which was introduced by the Labor government in 1992.

The committee’s second report examines options for community based alternatives to detention. We believe that the development of viable alternatives to detention is a fundamental part of the reform process. In 2005 the former government initiated significant reform to law and policy to enable the release of children and their families from detention centres into the community. By July 2005 all children and their families were placed in the community. In July last year the Rudd government introduced a new policy which aims to limit mandatory detention to those individuals who pose a health, security or compliance risk. I welcomed this as a further step towards the establishment of a more humane approach to immigration detention, and the committee’s second report continues this move by focusing on alternatives to detention and the means of support for those released from detention and living in the community. I believe that the model of release via a reformed bridging visa system proposed in the report is another step in the right direction and that the report also makes some valuable suggestions about more humane bridging visa conditions which are intended to ensure that people are provided with the social and economic support they need to live adequately and decently in the community.

In my view, there are two areas of significant concern that the report has not addressed. The first is the detention of children in immigration residential housing and immigration transit accommodation. The second is the lack of transparency in the proposed model of release by bridging visa. The harmful effect of detention on the family lives and the development of children is well documented. It was reiterated to the committee in numerous submissions, notably by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Australian Psychological Society.

It is worth noting that, in response to a rising tide of opinion strongly opposed to the detention of children under the mandatory detention regime, the former government amended the Migration Act to include the statement:

The Parliament affirms as a principle that a minor shall only be detained as a measure of last resort.

That was in 2005. As a consequence, in July 2005 all children and their families were released into the community through a mechanism known as residence determination. Under the changes then made to the Migration Act, the minister is empowered to determine that a specified person may reside at a specified place such as a flat or a house in the community instead of being detained at a place of immigration detention. As the explanatory memorandum to the 2005 bill states:

Under these arrangements, detainees would be free to move about in the community without being accompanied or restrained by an officer under the Act.

The granting of residence determination has been the mechanism through which the former government’s commitment to release children and their families from detention into the community has been fulfilled. In the course of its inquiry, however, the migration committee received disturbing evidence of instances in which children had been held for extended periods of time in forms of immigration detention other than immigration detention centres. It is important that we are clear that the 2005 reforms and the legislative change that gave them statutory effect were intended not only to release children and families from immigration detention centres but to release them from, as I said, all forms of detention other than a residence determination, allowing them to live at liberty in the community with only minor restrictions such as their parents’ reporting requirements. I have, therefore, been concerned—I am aware that this concern is shared by others, and it was brought to the committee’s attention in submissions—that the government’s new detention values only explicitly prohibit detention of children in immigration detention centres.

According to the most recent departmental statistics, as at 15 May 2009 there were a total of 55 children in either immigration residential housing, transit accommodation or alternative detention in the community. ‘Alternative detention’ includes detention in the community with a designated person in private houses, correctional facilities, watch-houses, hotel apartments, foster care and hospitals. By contrast, according to the most recent count, there are only 27 children on residence determinations living freely and unsupervised with their families in the community.

I do not believe that the majority report gives adequate weight to the evidence received by the committee from the International Coalition on Detention of Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants, which said that long-term use of these detention alternatives for families and individuals with health issues is not something that should be accepted. Evidence was also submitted to the inquiry by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that it has been aware of several cases where children and families have been detained in immigration residential housing facilities for a significant period of time. The submission tells of the stress suffered by a family with a small child and a pregnant mother held in immigration residential housing for two months. This evidence is further updated in the commission’s report on 2008 inspections, which revealed that a family with a baby and a five-year-old child were detained in immigration detention residential housing for three months. The committee also received verbal confirmation from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that children would now be held in immigration residential housing beyond the period of initial assessment.

The report provides descriptions that closely mirror the promotion materials readily available on the department’s website that speak of landscaped areas at detention centres, quiet areas for reading and other activities, units with disability access and the provision of full catering, including all meals and snacks as required. The committee does acknowledge that facilities termed ‘immigration residential housing’ remain secure and closed environments with restricted access and a security presence at reception. These facilities have security measures in operation for monitoring—from cameras and alarm systems to guards at the doors. We have all seen them. The fact is that these are still closed detention facilities which, however sophisticated the security monitoring may be, have one ultimate aim and purpose: to prevent people from passing through the door. The object of the 2005 reforms regarding children was to allow families to live in the community, attending day school, day care and so on without supervision because the Australian community would no longer accept children being detained in secure detention. I am very concerned that we may be slipping away from our obligations.

The second issue that was inadequately addressed in the committee’s report in my view is transparency. In the majority report the committee recognised both the benefits of maintaining a high level of transparency in the migration system and the damage that has already been done by its absence. The report states:

Consistently the evidence reported a lack of transparency in DIAC decision-making which diminished the rigour of the immigration system.

It cautions:

Failure to provide this transparency will inevitably lead to inconsistency, poor outcomes for people, an increase in review applications, and an even greater loss of public confidence in our immigration system.

While the report correctly diagnosed the malaise, its recommendations fall far short of a remedy. Recommendation 4, for instance, proposes that there be provision in writing of reasons for a bridging visa refusal. Since the provision of written reasons for bridging visa refusals is already standard practice in the department, it really is difficult to see that this contributes a great deal more. Furthermore, simply providing reasons for decisions does not constitute a sufficient mechanism of accountability. The report mentions in the second part of recommendation 4 the introduction of external scrutiny of the decision to continue detention. I am not sure what this means, but if the committee intended that full merits review provisions should be provided to those for whom release from detention has not been granted, it should say so explicitly and unapologetically.

As in the first dissenting report, we strongly disagree that public servants should have unfettered power to detain, without independent external scrutiny. These concerns are not alleviated by the model of release by bridging visa proposed in the second report, particularly not by the paucity of transparency measures presented in recommendation 4.

I wish to add my voice to those of other committee members who have thanked the many contributors to this inquiry. I also wish to express my gratitude to the secretariat. I, along with other members of the committee I am sure, was particularly moved by the testimony provided by community groups such as the Hotham Mission and the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre in my home state of Victoria. They have carried more than their share of the burden of providing economic, legal and emotional support to asylum seeks in the community. We should all recognise, and express our gratitude for, the extraordinarily commendable service over many years by these groups. I look forward to the third report.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I take this opportunity to speak to the second report of the inquiry into migration detention, Immigration detention in Australia: Community-based alternatives to detention—Report, May 2009. At the outset, I place on record my personal appreciation of the excellent work of the secretariat to that committee and also to the leadership of the member for Melbourne Ports, who was the chair, and the deputy leadership of the member for Hughes. I believe their contribution to the work of the committee resulted not only in a very balanced and fair report but also to what I believe is largely a bipartisan report. Certainly there might be elements within the report on which there has been some disagreement—I accept that—but broadly, if one were to look at the entire report, I think it would be fair to say that there was far more agreement than disagreement by members of the committee.

Last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration began an inquiry into a wide range of issues to assist the government in rebuilding public confidence in the integrity of our immigration detention system and to build a more humane system consistent with Australia’s international obligations. The committee’s first report,Immigration detention in Australia: A new beginning—criteria for release from detention, released last December, covered the first two terms of reference of its inquiry—firstly, the criteria that should be applied in determining how long a person should be held in immigration detention and, secondly, the criteria that should be applied in determining when a person should be released from immigration detention following health and security checks.

It was particularly pleasing on that occasion that the committee achieved a very high degree of apparent agreement. The committee at the time of the December report included Deputy Chair Danna Vale, the member for Hughes; Senator Alan Eggleston; Mr Petro Georgiou, the member for Kooyong; and, the opposition spokeswoman on immigration and citizenship, Dr Sharman Stone, who is also the member for Murray. A dissenting report was submitted by the member for Kooyong, and by Senator Alan Eggleston and Senator Hanson-Young, urging the government go further and calling for broader access to judicial review of detention, but otherwise the committee endorsed the direction the Rudd government had taken on these issues. Recommendation 12 of that report explicitly supported the Rudd government’s approach to immigration detention reform. Recommendation 12 stated:

The Committee recommends that, as a priority, the Australian Government introduce amendments to the Migration Act 1958 to enshrine in legislation the reforms to immigration detention policy announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

The Committee also recommends that, as a priority, the Migration Regulations and guidelines are amended to reflect these reforms.

Further, recommendation 12 of the report commented on the government’s policy changes. Paragraph 4.85 of the report states:

The Committee is highly supportive of the announced values and considers they need to be reflected in Commonwealth law. The Committee agrees that the Migration Act in its current form does not reflect the spirit nor provide any legal guidance on the implementation of the Minister’s detention values.

Paragraph 4.86 states:

The Committee considers that legislative change to enshrine these reforms is vital and should be introduced as a priority. Similarly, development of the accompanying regulatory changes and appropriate guidelines must be considered a priority.

Unfortunately, having unanimously supported the committee’s recommendations in its first report in December, the opposition have taken the politically expedient path of backing away from the committee’s recommendations. Of course, this is part of a broader pattern. The coalition did not oppose the closure of the Pacific solution in December 2007, after we came to government. We did not hear from them in August last year when we introduced regulations to abolish temporary protection visas. Only now does the coalition apparently have a problem with Labor’s reforms. Only now, without any proof whatsoever, does the opposition spokesperson on immigration claim that changes they supported are encouraging asylum seekers, which brings me to the second report.

The second report was tabled last week. The second report considers community based alternatives to detention and particularly examines the conditions and material support for release into the community, including appropriate options for community based alternatives to secure detention. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration inquired into international experience, considered the manner in which such alternatives may be utilised in Australia to broaden the options available within the current immigration detention framework and evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these alternatives with current options.

It is both unfortunate and disappointing that the committee was unable to adopt a bipartisan approach to the committee’s second report. Rather, we have seen the four Liberals on the committee take four mutually exclusive positions, with the deputy chair, Danna Vale, the member for Hughes, agreeing with the majority report. As I acknowledged earlier, I believe that the member for Hughes was very genuine in her approach to ensuring that we had a bipartisan report at the end of our inquiry. We had a dissenting report from the member for Kooyong—and we just heard him speak on that dissenting report; we had a minority report from the opposition spokesperson on immigration, Dr Sharman Stone; and we had a complete abdication of any responsibility from Senator Fierravanti-Wells.

Discerning just what the opposition policy may be is anyone’s guess. The opposition spokesman on immigration has been eager to play politics with the issue of immigration detention. Having supported the government’s reforms in December, political opportunism has again reared its head. It is extremely disappointing to hear the member for Murray completely misrepresent the recommendations of the joint standing committee and say, as she has done both in parliament and in her minority report, that the committee has recommended the release of asylum seekers prior to the completion of identity, health and security checks. That is clearly not the case and it is clearly not the intent of the report. If the shadow spokesman on immigration is assuming that ‘immigration status’ in recommendations 2, 3 and 8 means identity, health and security checks then she is mistaken. The ‘immigration status’ comment in those three recommendations refers to whether a person meets the refugee or asylum seeker criteria, not whether their identity, health and security have been determined. It is disappointing that the whole question of immigration status has been politicised and this whole report has been used for politically expedient reasons.

Can I make a few personal remarks as a result of my experience as a member of the committee. I and other members of the committee have had the opportunity to visit detention centres around the country. We have read scores of submissions from individuals and organisations who have had direct knowledge of refugee issues. We have heard the personal stories and listened to the extensive evidence presented to the committee from scores of expert witnesses on refugee matters. It has been a lengthy inquiry, but I do not recall a single submission supporting the policies and processes relating to refugees that were applied during the Howard government years. Even coalition members of the committee called for changes towards a much more humane policy—and we previously heard the member for Kooyong arguing that very case in relation to children. I believe that there was a very genuine attempt by all members of the committee, having heard all the stories, to try and implement a policy which we would feel proud of, which was humane but which, at the same time, would not place Australia at any further risk than it had previously been subject to. I believe that the report from this committee does exactly that.

I will finish on a point relating to the statistics concerning people who are in detention at the moment. We have, on last count, 790 people in detention. Of those, 299 are from Afghanistan, 120 are from the People’s Republic of China and 106 are from Sri Lanka. That makes up over 500 of the total number of people in detention. The remaining people in detention come from all over the world, so the numbers for all other countries are relatively low. If you look at those statistics carefully—putting aside the 120 from the People’s Republic of China as those people do not generally come over here on the leaky boats that some have described—the clear majority of people who are seeking asylum in this country have come from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. These are both war torn countries. They are both countries from which it is understandable why people would want to leave and look for a safe haven. If we are going to stop people coming to this country, the answer lies not in putting a fence around our country or in having harsh measures with which to deal with them when they are here, which achieves very little, but rather in trying to ensure that assistance is provided from their own country so that there is no reason for them to want to leave in the first place. It is interesting to note, when you look at the number of refugees that are now in detention centres that have come from Iraq, which was also a war torn country, that they have dropped markedly. It would seem to me that that is because things are stabilising somewhat in that country and, therefore, the reason for them to want to leave is simply not there.

Finally, I say that detention is not a cost-effective way of dealing with these people. Whilst they may have arrived in this country unlawfully, when all is said and done there is no evidence to show that they have at any time presented any form of risk. I believe the report, as I said, is fair and balanced. I certainly support the report’s recommendations. I pick up the comments from the member for Kooyong earlier and say this with respect to children: I do not believe any member of the committee wants to see children in any form of detention. I think the member for Kooyong would accept that that is genuinely the view of all members of the committee. Trying to find a solution to all the different cases that the committee was confronted with, and to put it in the form of a recommendation, is not simple. I guess we have to rely on the terminology that, if children are to be placed in detention, it should be as a last resort. Perhaps the key words here are as a last resort and for the shortest term possible. That is certainly the intention of the committee members, and I would expect that that is the intention of the minister. I commend the report to the government for its consideration.

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

by leave—The extra time I will have here, having made the tabling speech, will allow me to look in greater detail at the recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee on Migration entitled Immigration detention in Australia: community-based alternatives to detention as well as address some of the comments by the shadow minister for immigation. It is worth restating that the committee is extremely pleased that the government has taken steps to respond to the recommendations from our first report, which was tabled in December 2008—in particular, recommendation 18 of that report that the government introduce legislation to waive all detention charges and debt immediately. I think the members for Kooyong and Makin have spoken positively about that.

Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Georgiou interjecting

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.