Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015. I would like to start by dispelling some of the myths that we have heard, as usual, from the Abbott government in relation to this bill. The first myth I would like to dispel is this blatant misuse of the Hawke-Williams report that the Abbott government has cited as being the magic bullet—the formulaic response, if you like, to why we are going down this track. The Hawke-Williams report does not mention anything in relation to the use of force, yet we hear the Abbott government use that report as a justification for where this use of force comes from. But the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights when assessing this bill, said:

Further, the committee notes that the Hawke-Williams report, which is cited in support of the stated objective of the measure, does not contain any reference to the inadequacy of the common law regarding the use of force and did not recommend creating a statutory use of force power for employees of an IDSP. Rather, it focused on ensuring appropriate arrangements to clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of managing security between the department, the IDSP and the police …

And it recommended the establishment of a protocol. That is what the report says, so anything we hear from the Abbott government saying that somehow the Hawke-Williams report backed in the use of force is completely incorrect.

The second issue, which I will mention briefly, is training. In my former role as an official at United Voice, I organised detention centres, so I am well aware of what happens in them from the perspective of the guards. Again, we heard somehow that these guards, if they were given the power to use force, would be appropriately trained.

We just heard the certificate II mentioned. The certificate II is already the certification sought by detention officers. They already have a certificate II in security operations. Let me tell you a little bit about that certificate. One of the other roles I had at United Voice was to organise security officers, and I sat on national training boards and state training boards and I signed off on these certifications. So I think I have a fair amount of experience when it comes to knowing what a certificate II in security operations is for. That certificate is for people who act as security officers standing outside banks or shopping centres, or who drive around at night patrolling premises. It has nothing to do with detention facilities. The only reason it is used is that it is an inadequate response to the requirement to have trained officers. It was never ever intended for detention centres. It is for the use of people who are licensed security officers under state police acts to guard premises—banks, shopping centres, supermarkets—or who undertake what are called 'mobile patrols' where they patrol buildings usually at night and leave their card. It is an entirely inadequate certificate for this type of work—completely inadequate.

The Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill seeks to formally establish a use of force regime in Australian detention centres. In opposing this bill, it is worth stepping back and identifying who will be given the authority and sanction to use force. Australian detention centres are run by private, profit-making services. The current operator of Australian detention centres is Serco, a large multinational company with a controversial history in running private prisons in the UK.

In my home state of Western Australia, Serco has been completely incompetent in running WA's brand new flagship Fiona Stanley Hospital. It was the Barnett government's decision to privatise this hospital. It has been nothing but chaos since this ill-considered decision was made. The last bungle involved the sterilisation of instruments used in surgery. Serco showed itself to be incapable of running this essential part of the hospital, so much so that the Barnett government was forced to take the sterilisation service back in house, back into the hands of competently, directly employed professionals.

What I can say about detention centre contracts, again from my experience as an official at United Voice, is that these contractors are usually awarded to the cheapest contractor. You will not hear the government say that but in my long experience of organising in detention centres, when contracts changed they always went to the cheapest contractor. This means that the workforce is often low paid and certainly in the case of detention centre staff their wages are significantly behind those of similar officers employed in the Public Service, which is essentially why this service is contracted out—it comes down to dollars.

Opportunities for training and building a career are limited as many contract detention staff are employed part time and casual. These are the officers who have just been described as professionals. Taking nothing away from the individuals who do the job, I agree with Senator Sinodinos. They are often fine people but they are employed part time and in substantial numbers they are casual, so they do not have any prospect of ongoing employment. In any event, there is little or no scope for moving up the scale or taking a career opportunity as there are effectively two levels of officers within the Serco detention centre—entry level and post entry level and then there are supervisory levels. A low-paid, casual workforce does not create a workplace where employees feel valued or where workers feel they have the support of them employers as they battle for shifts and decent pay.

Just a few months back, Serco concluded an agreement with the union, United Voice, and no provision has been made for this new position of authorised officer. Despite those opposite telling us that this was a professional position, that these would be highly trained authorised officers, in their wages and conditions no allowance has been made for this new authorised position with the onerous responsibilities that come with the use of force—nothing.

Despite the government's bill, which would give contract detention staff the new authority to use force, a bar to legal proceedings and questionable additional training, which will be some secret deal between the minister and the private profit-making contractor Serco, there is no mention of this new classification. Some in this place might be surprised to learn that detention centre officers earn a maximum base pay of $29 per hour. There is a requirement for formal training but only to the level of certificate II in security operations, which I have just described is a certificate applying to static guards, people who guard banks or mobile officers who patrol around and guard buildings usually at night. Again, this is entirely inappropriate as this qualification is a general security qualification and is designed for security officers to manage shopping centres and banks, not people seeking asylum.

If you look at the training and the competencies for a certificate II security officer, their skills and knowledge are completely at odds with the skills and knowledge an 'authorised' officer will be expected to deploy when faced with a decision on whether to use force. It is likely that an authorised officer will find him or herself in a complex situation and will be required to make an instant decision—a heat-of-the-moment decision—to use what the bill describes as 'reasonable force'. The training at the certificate II level describes a competent person—someone who has completed the course and met the competencies—as being able to demonstrate 'limited' judgement in 'structured and stable contexts' and within 'narrow parameters'. That is not heat of the moment and that is not having to make that snap decision about whether to use force. The Australian qualification, which is the Certificate II in Security Operations, criteria clearly sets out that a person at that level is not competent to undertake that level of decision making.

And yet the government does not blink. The government has paid no attention to the upskilling of detention centre officers and, despite the enterprise bargaining agreement just being concluded, Serco made no attempt to include the new 'authorised' officer classification, increase the qualification level or suggest a higher rate of pay for an officer who will, if this bill passes, be given the enormous responsibility, beyond the level of their competency—their level II training—of using reasonable force.

Now, it is easy to figure out why Serco did not want to include this new classification in its enterprise agreement—because it would eat into their profits. It is harder to figure out why the government is disregarding its duty of care towards asylum seekers by presenting the Senate with a bill which is found wanting on all its key components.

During the Senate inquiry, when I asked the government department responsible for this legislation if they were aware of ongoing negotiations between Serco and the union, they took the question on notice. And their response was inadequate to say the least, stating that it was a matter for the parties not the government. This was from a government that wants to change substantially the duties of detention centre officers. Somehow, it did not think that it should be involved in that. What a cop out, when the government itself is asking this parliament to give contract detention centre officers more powers than the Federal Police and more powers than prison officers. They are washing their hands of training requirements and applicable rates of pay.

In fact, when questioned during the hearing, the department said in evidence that contract detention centre officers had similar training to that of Western Australian prison officers and Victorian police. Nothing could be further from the truth. Victorian police undertake a Diploma of Public Safety: 33 weeks full-time with a further on-the-job training component of 83 weeks, which gives a total training period of two years and three months. Compare that for a moment with a Certificate II in Security Operations, which you can get on a weekend. This is the training qualification which the government says is adequate to give detention centre staff the authorisation to use force.

Of course, the qualification which the Victorian police undertake is a diploma qualification—not a certificate II, a diploma qualification—a stark contrast to a Certificate II in Security Operations which, as I said, can be done over two days. And the application of knowledge and skills could not be more different. In Victoria the use of force is defined as 'reasonable and necessary'—a test that the Abbott government does not want to put into this use of force in detention centres.

And let's not forget that this inadequate training will be a secret between the minister and the contractor. At the end of this diploma qualification, Victorian police have the skills and knowledge to demonstrate:

… autonomy, judgement and defined responsibility in known or changing skills contexts …

Compare that with the outcome for a certificate II security officer, which is 'in stable conditions' and under supervision.

Obviously, government senators at the hearing were concerned about this secret deal. In their majority report they recommended that the training be a legislative instrument and not a secret deal between the minister and the private, for-profit contractor.

And who is the government saying must be protected? There were at the time of the hearing around 1,635 people in Australian detention centres and, despite the broken promise and rhetoric of the government in its dirty deal in the Senate about releasing children by last Christmas, there were around 115 children in detention in Australia. If you take the children out it leaves about 1,520 adults in detention. We were told at the Senate inquiry into this bill that there were around eight per cent of this population that the government were concerned about—the bikie gangs and all the other labels that they like to add. That means that this bill is really being put in place to deal with around 120 people—120 people! They want to put into place a good order bill that gives detention centre officers the right to use force for about 120 people. That is really what we are talking about here—120 people.

In the explanatory memoranda, the minister sets out the reasons for this bill, which seem to go to:

The presence of high risk detainees with behavioural challenges, such as members of outlaw motorcycle gangs, jeopardises the safety, security and peace of our immigration detention facilities and the safety of all persons within those facilities.

Of course I am concerned about the safety of people in detention centres whether they are refugees or staff. But, seriously, the way the government flies refugees around this country, I think it could gather up the 120 people and put them in one place and hold them securely. I would suggest you do that, before you pass a bill that unilaterally gives detention centre officers who are low paid and poorly trained the authority to use force.

Seriously, the government wants to introduce a bill which gives sweeping powers to contract detention centre staff to use force, and the only test for the use of this force is that it is 'reasonable'—to use that against just 121 individuals whom the government is actively seeking to deport? Seriously, this beggars belief.

I believe this bill is more about demonising the bulk of those 1,635 individuals—men, women and children—who have a legitimate right to seek asylum in this country. The government are trying to interfere with that right by slowing down the application process and attempting to paint their usual picture of people as 'queue-jumpers', as 'illegals', as 'illegal maritime arrivals'—and whatever other labels they attempt to use in this place. They are trying to say that these are somehow people that law-abiding Australians ought to be frightened of. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I heard in evidence at the inquiry that people who had been granted asylum were still waiting in detention centres, and that on average people waited for around 400 days once their paperwork was submitted. Of course, in reality people wait much longer, as getting to the submitting stage can take years. And of course frustrations will rise when people are held for indefinite periods with no end in sight. Ensuring that processing is done in a timely fashion and keeping people informed about their application for asylum would go a long way to keeping frustration levels low.

The committee received a number of submissions from law experts and the Human Rights Commission, and they all expressed the same grave concerns about the use of force and the bar on legal proceedings—and the whole of this bill. Even the government's own senators raised concerns about the use of force and the need for clarification.

Despite that, the government seems hell-bent on pushing this bill through the parliament. Labor and others have significant amendments to this bill, and I hope they are accepted by the government.