Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table the explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2009

This Bill implements the decision, announced by the Government on 23 December 2008, to establish the position of the National Security Legislation Monitor.

The National Security Legislation Monitor will review the operation, effectiveness and implications of counter-terrorism and national security legislation on an ongoing basis.

The Government’s aims in establishing the National Security Legislation Monitor are firstly, to ensure that the laws which Australia has enacted or enhanced since 11 September 2001 to specifically address the threat of terrorism or security related concerns operate in an effective and accountable manner and secondly, that these laws are consistent with Australia’s international obligations, including our human rights obligations. We all remain hopeful that one day there will be a time when the threat of terrorism will diminish and make the need for these laws no longer necessary, and on that basis, the Monitor will also consider if our counter-terrorism and national security laws remain necessary.

This Bill puts into place a mechanism for the regular review of Australia’s counter-terrorism and national security legislation which will increase and maintain public confidence in those laws. One way it does this is through the Monitor considering if the laws contain appropriate safeguards for protecting individuals’ rights.

The proposals in this Bill reflect the Government’s commitment to ensure that Australia has strong counter-terrorism laws that protect the security of Australians, while preserving the values and freedoms that are part of the Australian way of life.

The establishment of an independent reviewer of terrorism laws is consistent with the recommendations made by the Security Legislation Review Committee in June 2006 and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in December 2006 and September 2007. Most recently, the inquiry by the Hon. John Clarke QC into the Case of Dr Mohamed Haneef also supported the establishment of an independent review mechanism.

The United Kingdom has an Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws, currently held by Lord Cathie, who conducts regular reviews into different aspects of the United Kingdom’s counter-terrorism legislation including the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

Like the UK model, the role of the Monitor will be undertaken by one person who will be expected to be independent from the current administration of the counter-terrorism legislation. Although the Bill does not formally require the

Monitor to be a lawyer, the Monitor must have sufficient experience in the criminal law and be of high standing in the community. In recognition of the importance of this appointment, the Bill requires that before a recommendation on appointment is made to the Governor-General, the Prime Minister must consult with the Leader of the Opposition.

In order to bring clarity to the Monitor’s role and function, the counter-terrorism and national security legislation within the scope of the Monitor’s consideration is outlined in the Bill, as recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs’ enquiry into similar legislation to establish an independent reviewer of terrorism laws.

The Bill provides the framework within which the Monitor can review the relevant legislation. The Monitor may initiate his or her own investigations, or the Prime Minister may refer a matter to the Monitor to review within a specified timeframe.

Turning to the functions of the Monitor, the Monitor will be required to review the operation, effectiveness and implications of Australia’s counter-terrorism and national security legislation which primarily includes the legislation which has been specifically enacted to counter terrorism and related security threats. However, the Monitor is also given the ability to review other legislation, such as general Commonwealth criminal legislation, which is used from time to time in connection with the national security and counter-terrorism legislation. The Monitor’s functions also require the Monitor to consider whether Australia’s counter-terrorism and national security legislation contains appropriate safeguards for protecting the rights of individuals. The Monitor must also consider if these laws remain necessary to protect Australians from the threat of terrorism and terrorism-related activity.

When reviewing Australia’s counter-terrorism legislation, the Monitor must give particular emphasis to that legislation which has been used or considered in the previous financial year to ensure that the Monitor reviews the laws when they have been used in a practical scenario.

In reviewing the legislation, the Monitor must have regard to Australia’s international obligations, such as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and United Nations counter-terrorism instruments as well as the agreed national counter-terrorism arrangements between the Commonwealth, States and Territories.

The Monitor must report his or her comments to the Prime Minister on an annual basis. Edited as necessary on grounds of operationally sensitive, national security classified, or Cabinet information, the report will be laid before each House of Parliament and will therefore be available for parliamentary and public scrutiny.

The Government envisages that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and other parliamentary committees will have an interest in the work of the Monitor. The Government is investigating options to ensure that the necessary mechanisms will be available for these committees to review the Monitor’s reports, including an amendment to s29 of the Intelligence Services Act to include in the functions of the MIS a capacity to review the Monitor’s work that relates to the remit of that Committee.

To ensure the Monitor can conduct a thorough review of the legislation, a provision has been made for the Monitor to have access to national security classified documents and operationally sensitive information if the information is required for the performance of his or her functions.

The Bill provides the Monitor with the power to compel the giving of sworn testimony. Further, the Monitor has the power to hold both public and private hearings if a person is giving evidence that discloses operationally sensitive information. In addition, the Monitor has the power to summon a person and to compel the production of documents and things. These powers are supported by criminal offences for conduct in the nature of contempt.

It is envisaged that the Monitor would also liaise with other key bodies, such as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The role of the Monitor will complement the role of the IGIS and other oversight bodies, but it will not duplicate their roles.

The Bill also contains a number of standard miscellaneous and administrative provisions. The Bill provides for the Monitor’s terms and conditions of appointment, remuneration and allowances, leave, outside employment, disclosure of interests, resignation, termination of appointment and acting arrangements. It goes without saying that heavy emphasis is also placed on the need for the Monitor to safeguard appropriately and maintain the operationally sensitive information or national security classified documents entrusted to him or her.

A new independent review mechanism will ensure that the laws underpinning Australia’s counter-terrorism and national security regime are effective as the threat to Australia’s national interests evolve. More importantly, the impartiality of the Monitor, as envisaged in this Bill, will strike a necessary balance between the need to prevent terrorist activities from threatening Australia’s way of life with the need to protect our individual rights and liberties.

The debate about establishing in Australia an ‘Independent Reviewer’ of counter-terrorism laws is not new. This Bill represents implementation of bipartisan recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Mr Clarke’s Inquiry into the Case of Dr Mohamed Haneef and the Sheller Committee of 2006. The calls to establish this role have now been answered and I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Bill 2009

In April 2008 I appointed an independent committee to review the operation and effectiveness of the citizenship test.

After the first 6 months operation it was timely to assess the effectiveness of the citizenship test. There were also a number of concerns raised with me, predominantly fears that the test had created an unintended barrier to citizenship for the more vulnerable migrants in our community —refugees and humanitarian entrants.

The Citizenship Test Review Committee was commissioned to examine the operation of the citizenship test since its introduction on 1 October 2007 and identify whether there were ways to improve the administration of the test and its effectiveness as the pathway for residents to become Australian citizens. The Review committee undertook extensive community consultations before compiling their report and recommendations.

In its report, Moving Forward … Improving Pathways to Citizenship, the Review Committee made 34 recommendations to the Government. Twenty seven of those recommendations were agreed to by Government. The recommendations of the Review Committee focused on improvements to the content and administration of the test, the citizenship application process, and ensuring that vulnerable and disadvantaged people were not excluded from becoming citizens because of the test.

The Government wants a citizenship test that is part of a meaningful pathway to citizenship for all those aspiring to become Australians. It should fill our new citizens with confidence about their role in this society, and how they can contribute to making this nation vibrant and strong.

The Government reforms to the citizenship test aim to encourage prospective citizens to learn and understand the rights and responsibilities we all share as Australians.

On November 22 the Government announced its response to the Committee’s Report. The Government accepted 27 of the Citizenship Test Review Committee recommendations. The Government’s response and proposed amendments to the citizenship test received widespread community support.

The central finding of the review, which the Government has endorsed, is that the Pledge of Commitment should be the centrepiece of citizenship testing.

By focusing on the pledge the Government has placed democratic beliefs, responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship, and the requirement to uphold and obey the laws of Australia at the heart of the citizenship test.

The Committee recommended that the citizenship resources book and test question be revised to reflect the new focus on the Pledge.

The Government is currently engaging educational and civic experts to revise the resource book and test questions. The resource book will be developed in two separate sections of testable and non-testable information. The testable information will be based on Australia’s democratic beliefs and values, the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship and Australia’s system of government—the values outlined in the Pledge. The non-testable information will contain interesting and useful information. Learning such information should be encouraged and it is the Government’s intention for such information to continue to be made available in a new resource book.

In revising the resource book the Government accepted the Committee’s finding that the level of English used in the resource book was closer to ‘native speaker’ rather than the legislative requirement of ‘basic English’. Throughout the review the Committee received a number of submissions that the level of English required to understand the Citizenship Test resource book is well above that of basic English. When the current Citizenship Test resource book was assessed by linguistic experts it was found to be complex and difficult on a range of measures of reading difficulty. The revised resource book will be completed by August 2009.

The Review Committee expressed concern that there are no effective alternative pathways to sitting a computer-based test which was in effect marginalising some people from becoming citizens.

The Government is committed to ensuring people who have a commitment to Australia, and who have a strong desire to become Australian Citizens, have the opportunity to do so. To address this issue the Government will develop a citizenship course which will provide an alternative pathway to citizenship for a small group of disadvantaged people whose literacy skills will never be sufficient to sit and pass a formal computer test even though they understand English.

The Government is committed to ensuring that new migrants have the best possible chance of understanding their responsibilities, rights and privileges as an Australian citizen. The citizenship course will be based on the material in the resource book. Participants will still be assessed on the legislative requirements of possessing an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship as well as possessing a basic knowledge of the English language.

The citizenship course will ensure that the citizenship test caters for the needs of a broad range of people, particularly those who are disadvantaged and vulnerable.

The citizenship course is currently being developed by educational experts with the material being based on the content of the resource book.

In conjunction with these improvements, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Bill 2009 seeks to implement the committee recommendations agreed to by the Government that require legislative change.

First, the Bill proposes to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to allow for a small group of people who have suffered torture or trauma to be eligible for citizenship without having to first sit a citizenship test. These people will not have to sit a test if, at the time they make an application, they have a physical or mental incapacity which makes them unable to understand the nature of the application; they are unable to understand or speak basic English; or they are unable to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship.

This proposed amendment will ensure that the most vulnerable and disadvantaged of citizenship applicants will have a legitimate pathway to citizenship. The Review Committee made particular note of refugee and humanitarian entrants who were survivors of torture and trauma who can suffer from several disorders that have a ‘severe impact on their ability to retain and recall information’.

While the number affected by this amendment will be small without it the Government would be excluding a section of the Australian community from Australian Citizenship.

In the past, these clients have often failed the citizenship test multiple times but had no other means of meeting the legal requirements for conferral of citizenship. Concerns have also been expressed that some of these vulnerable people are fearful of doing the test and therefore are choosing not to become Australian citizens as a result.

Secondly, the Bill proposes to amend the Act to streamline the citizenship application process. This is in response to the Review Committee’s observation that the current process of multiple steps was inefficient for clients and the Department. The proposed changes will streamline the application and test process so that most applicants will only need to come to the Department once. This will make the process more responsive and provide more timely outcomes for clients as well as provide for better use of departmental resources.

Currently a person must sit and pass the citizenship test before making an application. As a result many clients sit the test months before they will meet the residence requirements for citizenship, which results in multiple contacts with my Department.

The proposed amendments will allow most clients to make an appointment to lodge an application and, on the same day, sit the test and have their application approved if all the legal requirements are met.

The proposed amendments will allow a time to be specified in a determination signed by the Minister within which a person may commence a test and successfully complete a test after making an application. This is to make sure that an application can be refused if a person does not successfully complete a citizenship test within a reasonable period of time.

The other proposed amendment to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 contained in this Bill concerns applicants for citizenship by conferral who are under the age of 18. Current legislation allows any person under the age of 18 to be eligible for Australian citizenship by conferral. This is a provision that was carried over from the 1948 Citizenship Act, however, the provision is being exploited and is undermining both the citizenship and migration programs.

Proposed amendments in this Bill will require that applicants under the age of 18 must be permanent residents to be eligible for citizenship by conferral. This is consistent with current policy. This amendment will prevent children who are in Australia unlawfully, or, who along with their families, have exhausted all migration options, from applying for citizenship in an attempt to prevent their removal from Australia.

The amendments will ensure the integrity and consistency of the citizenship and migration programs.

In conclusion, these amendments bring about key changes that complement reforms to the citizenship test that are already underway. The Bill will lead to a more streamlined citizenship process and one that will deliver fair and reasonable outcomes to clients of my Department.

The Bill deserves the support of all members of this Parliament.

I commend the Bill to the chamber.

Migration Amendment (Immigration Detention Reform) Bill 2009

The Migration Amendment (Immigration Detention Reform) Bill 2009 amends the Migration Act 1958 (the ‘Act’) to give legislative effect to the Government’s New Directions in Detention policy.

Australia under the Rudd Government has one of the toughest and most sophisticated border security regimes in the world, with a system of extensive air and sea patrols, excision, offshore processing, mandatory detention of unauthorised boat arrivals and unlawful non-citizens who pose a risk to the Australian community.

The Rudd Government has reinvigorated Australia’s engagement with regional neighbours to detect and prevent the insidious trade of people smuggling and committed $654 million to substantially increase aerial and maritime surveillance and detection operations in the region.

The reforms outlined in this Bill will complement Australia’s strong border security measures to ensure we have an immigration detention system that protects the Australian community and treats people humanely.

NEW DIRECTIONS IN DETENTION: VALUES

The Rudd Labor Government was elected on a platform that included a commitment to implementing more humane detention policies. On 29 July 2008, the Government announced seven Key Immigration Detention Values to give effect to that commitment and to guide and drive new detention policy and practice into the future.

The seven detention values are:

1. Mandatory detention is an essential component of strong border control.

2. To support the integrity of Australia’s immigration program, three groups will be subject to mandatory detention:

a. all unauthorised arrivals, for management of health, identity and security risks to the community;

b. unlawful non-citizens who present unacceptable risks to the community; and

c. unlawful non-citizens who have repeatedly refused to comply with their visa conditions.

3. Children, including juvenile foreign fishers and, where possible, their families, will not be detained in an immigration detention centre (IDC).

4. Detention that is indefinite or otherwise arbitrary is not acceptable and the length and conditions of detention, including the appropriateness of both the accommodation and the services provided, would be subject to regular review.

5. Detention in immigration detention centres is only to be used as a last resort and for the shortest practicable time.

6. People in detention will be treated fairly and reasonably within the law.

7. Conditions of detention will ensure the inherent dignity of the human person.

The Government’s Key Immigration Detention Values provide the framework for our approach to immigration detention, maintaining a commitment to effective border management while treating unlawful non-citizens compassionately. 

The Government introduced these values to address serious concerns about Australia’s immigration detention system.

Under the previous Government detention was the default position.

Children were locked behind barbed wire and desperate and vulnerable people who had fled war and persecution were left to languish in detention centres for years on end with no resolution in sight. Research has shown that detention, particularly long term detention, may have severe impacts on both the physical and mental health of detainees.

This Government’s approach to managing the immigration population is one based on a risk management matrix. The level of restriction on a person’s liberty and the degree of monitoring relates directly to a client’s assessed risk to the Australian community, including any risk of non-compliance with Australia’s immigration laws.

While detention is a key component of immigration compliance, it is only one tool in a suite of management options. In this legislation, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (the ‘Department’) will assess risk in managing compliance with Australia’s migration system.  The detention values embrace a risk-based approach to immigration detention which focuses on the prompt resolution of status, rather than on automatic, inflexible and often counter-productive detention.  The Government’s policy will reduce the duration of detention, with greater transparency, oversight and accountability around both the decision to detain and the decision to continue detention.

This approach seeks to flexibly manage risk and reduce the cost and impact of detention.  Not just the very expensive cost to taxpayers in managing a detention program, but also its detrimental impacts: the impact on the wellbeing of individuals placed in the Department’s care, most particularly in relation to their mental health, the effect on the Department and its staff and the damage done to Australia’s international reputation as a result of the previous detention regime.

In many respects the new detention values, and the amendments proposed in this Bill, represent a continuation of the reforms introduced by the former Government in 2005.  After years of a harsh detention regime that included the locking up of children, and in the wake of the Cornelia Rau and Vivian Alvarez Solon scandals, the former Government came to the realisation that the continuation of their existing policies was untenable.

The 2005 changes represented important steps in liberalising what had become a harsh and inefficient system of immigration detention. This legislation builds on those reforms in moving towards a modern risk management model for immigration detention.

Within this framework, detention in an immigration detention centre involves a high level of restriction and monitoring, appropriate to managing high-risk individuals. Detention in the community under a Residence Determination, by contrast, involves management not through a restriction of liberty, but through the imposition of conditions such as requirements about where a person is to live, reporting mechanisms and a restriction on activities.  Those posing low risk to the Australian community will be placed in the community.  The most vulnerable of these community clients will be supported to an immigration outcome.  The Australian Red Cross provides community care for these people and their health needs are supported by the International Health and Medical Service.

Within this system, clients are assessed for risk and placed appropriately within the compliance framework. Three groups will be subject to mandatory detention: first, all unauthorised arrivals will be detained for the management of health, identity and security risks to the community; secondly, unlawful non-citizens who present unacceptable risks to the community; and thirdly, unlawful non-citizens who have repeatedly refused to comply with their visa conditions.

This approach will see high-risk clients detained in secure detention facilities. Unauthorised arrivals and others assessed as posing an unacceptable risk to the community, including those who have demonstrated repeated non-compliance with immigration laws, will also be located within the detention network. This may involve placement in an immigration detention centre for those at the higher end of risk, and in lower security facilities such as immigration residential housing or immigration transit accommodation, or in community detention, for those presenting a lower level of risk.

Other clients—generally those seeking an immigration outcome after applying for a Protection visa, visa overstayers, and those who have had their visas cancelled for non-compliance of a minor nature—will generally be managed in the community.

This approach to immigration compliance mitigates the adverse impacts of detention and also places protection of the community at the forefront of our considerations.  Most importantly, this risk-based approach relegates the use of detention to being one management tool in a suite of measures available to the Department to manage compliance.

PROGRESS TO DATE

Following the announcement of the Government’s New Directions in Detention policy last July the Department began implementing the reforms administratively, while developing the required legislative and regulatory changes.

Under the Rudd Government, children are not, under any circumstances, to be held in immigration detention centres.

In 2005 the former Government brought in legislative changes that embedded in the Act the principle that minors would only be detained as a measure of last resort.  The Rudd Government’s detention values extend on this principle, requiring that minors shall only be detained as a measure of last resort and will never be detained in an immigration detention centre.

This policy was immediately implemented administratively in July 2008 in Departmental policy and operations.  While there still may be occasions when minors will be accommodated in low to medium security facilities within the immigration detention framework, such as immigration residential housing and immigration transit accommodation, the priority is that minors and, where possible, their families will be promptly accommodated in community detention while necessary checks are undertaken.  This arrangement allows minors and their families to move about in the community under the care of the Commonwealth and to receive support from non-government organisations and State and Territory welfare agencies, as necessary.

The policy priority continues to be the resolution of a minor’s status at the earliest possible time. The Government considers that this measured approach strikes the correct balance between operating a migration program with integrity whilst also ensuring that the welfare of children is a primary consideration.

The primary objective is resolution of status, thereby reducing the duration of detention.

Recognising the severe impacts of long-term detention, the Coalition in 2005 introduced two year Ombudsman’s reviews of detention. Unfortunately, despite introducing this mechanism, the former Government never responded seriously to the Ombudsman’s recommendations.  Too often, people remained in long term detention because there was no political will to resolve their difficult cases.

As the Rudd Government’s detention values state, indefinite detention is not acceptable.

Under this Government the Department has taken a proactive approach to the prompt resolution of detention cases, whether that be through progressing a client on a visa pathway or—when a client has no right to remain in Australia—expeditiously removing them.  There is also a greater focus on, and response to, the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s two year reports and recommendations.  This approach has significantly reduced the incidence of long-term detention.  As at 22 June 2009 only 26 clients had been in detention for longer than two years.  This is in marked contrast to the 74 clients who had been in detention for two years or more when the Rudd Government came to office.

Both the length and conditions of detention are subject to regular review.

While the Department regularly evaluates each person in detention to ensure that they are being detained in the most appropriate environment, commensurate with the risk they present, new review mechanisms announced in July 2008 have increased transparency and accountability of these processes. 

The three-monthly Senior Officer reviews, undertaken by experienced Senior Executive Service Officers in the Department, will focus on the lawfulness and appropriateness of continued detention.  The Senior Officer revi