Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Vanstone, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I again refer the minister to the Senate committee report on the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill, which recommended that the bill should not proceed. Did the minister note from the report’s findings that the offshore systems of identifying initial refugee status lacked independent scrutiny because they were made by her departmental officers and only able to be reviewed by other departmental officers? Wasn’t it this lack of transparency and independent review that led to the wrongful detention of Cornelia Rau, Vivian Alvarez Solon, Mr T and at least 26 other Australians? Can the minister explain why she wants to persist with a flawed offshore system in the bill, which lacks the fundamental requirements of transparency and independent scrutiny?

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for the question. Yes, I have noted some comments at least in relation to independent assessment. I also remind the senator—through you, Mr President—that the outcomes for a yes on Nauru in relation to the UN case load and the Australian case load, as I am advised, were pretty much the same. If not, the Australian case load—that is, that done by Australian departmental officials—was about the same. In other words, they got as good an outcome as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would give them. So I take note of all those pieces of information.

Senator Kirk, you mentioned a number of cases out of the many thousands you know that the immigration department handles onshore. It might be a matter for reflection that those cases happened despite the fact that there is a legislative framework around which those cases are handled. There are migration series instructions; there is the human rights commission and the Ombudsman. Onshore handling of these cases is one of the most regulated, reviewed and spotlighted areas of government policy. Senator, the proposition you put to me is that you want more regulation in another area; yet you raised by your own example that that will not always produce the ideal outcome. We aim for the ideal outcome; of course we do. But when there is a system that aims for an ideal outcome, how does it do that? It focuses on it when it gets a problem. With respect, Senator, you have asked a question about offshore processing and related it back to onshore processing. Sorry, it seems to me to be impractical.

Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the requirement in the Migration Act for reports from the Commonwealth Ombudsman on persons held in detention for more than two years? Can the minister confirm, as found by the Senate committee, that this requirement does not apply to persons held in offshore processing locations like Nauru? Can the minister explain why, under the bill, the Ombudsman has not been given full and proper access to offshore processing centres to provide a proper level of independent scrutiny and transparency?

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for her supplementary question. It is my view that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction with respect to Commonwealth officials, wheresoever they operate. It is also my view that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction with respect to subcontractors working under the direction of the Commonwealth. I will get that looked at, to make sure that my view is correct. But it is a view I am not alone in holding. If that view is correct, it would beg the question of why you would spell out what the existing rights are. It is my view that the Ombudsman already has the right to comment on and report, publicly or privately as he chooses, as he wants. You ask me, why isn’t it spelt out? I have just said to you that the Ombudsman has the oversight right already. If your question then is whether we will require him to make some reports, we will give some consideration to that.