Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

The document I want to discuss is ASIO’s annual report to parliament. I want to comment particularly on one section of the report which deals with visa security assessments. It is under the heading ‘Border security’, which is not always an overly accurate terminology for visas, but when it comes to making security assessments it is a reasonable enough title to use even if I think it is a phrase that is misused in other contexts. It is worth noting some material in this report. I want to refer to pages 29 and 30 in particular. The report says:

The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refers individuals to ASIO for security checking under Public Interest Criterion 4002 of the Migration Act 1958. ASIO makes an assessment on whether the entry or continued stay ... would pose a direct or indirect threat to security. Visa security checking processes are generally managed in order of referral from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, taking into account agreed prioritisation issues.

The report continues:

In making a security assessment ASIO takes into account—

according to it—

all relevant information and considers the impact on security of taking or not taking ... administrative action ...

It continues:

Publicly available and classified information is used to make assessments. Factors taken into consideration include:

• the nature and type of the applicant’s activities;
• the credibility of the information available ... and whether it can be corroborated; and
• the honesty of the applicant.

The assessment also may include an ASIO interview of the applicant. Interviews are undertaken—

according to ASIO—

to accelerate the assessment process and to provide the applicant with an opportunity to resolve issues of concern.

The next part is particularly worth noting:

Individuals who are not Australian citizens or holders of a valid permanent visa, special category visa or special purpose visa cannot apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of an ASIO security assessment.

During the last financial year, ASIO completed just over 3,000 assessments of unauthorised arrivals who were applicants for a protection visa. Given the way that political rhetoric is still used in this place and in the community to suggest that asylum seekers are a potential security risk, it is worth noting that 3,000 assessments were made in that financial year but only two raised security issues.

We know who those two people are. They are Mohammed Sagar and Muhammad Faisal, the two men who have been detained on Nauru for five years now. One of them is now in Brisbane—or was still in Brisbane the last time I heard. He is in the hospital there, receiving health treatment but under migration detention. He is still in detention, and has been for five years, on the basis of a security assessment which he has no opportunity to appeal against—this applies for both of the men—and when he has no opportunity to even know the basis used to create that security assessment.

It is worth noting that even that security assessment does not mean that it has been found that these two people are potential terrorists. The criterion is solely that there is even an indirect threat to security. There is no statement of reasons, no opportunity for the people who are affected to find out what the basis of the decision was and no opportunity to appeal. When the consequence of having no pathway to appeal is ongoing indefinite detention in a foreign country such as Nauru, it is a very serious problem and one that we need to find resolutions for.

ASIO officers went to Nauru again a few months ago to reinterview these two people, but not to make a fresh assessment. The process is so opaque that if there is not some mechanism for there to be review to ensure that decisions are made soundly the risk of serious injustice is very great. It is very hard not to suggest that that may have occurred in this case. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.