Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the report of the committee Immigration detention in Australia: facilities, services and transparency. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I will at the outset indicate that I think senators Hanson-Young and Bilyk were also wishing to speak on this report. It gives me great pleasure to stand here today on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration to table the third and final report from the inquiry into immigration detention in Australia. Following the first report tabled in December last year, which was entitled Immigration detention in Australia: a new beginning—criteria for release from detention, and a second report tabled in early May this year entitled Immigration detention in Australia: community-based alternatives to detention, this final report focuses on the facilities, services and transparency of immigration detention in Australia. The report concludes the 15-month long inquiry into the criteria for immigration detention in our country and the alternative options available. During these 15 months the joint committee on migration has reviewed some 142 submissions, visited detention centres across the country and spoken with witnesses from all walks of life in order to gain a wide-ranging insight into Australia’s immigration detention policies. It was the aim of the committee to offer suggestions to the government to help shape the future of Australia’s immigration detention policy in a fairer, more efficient and humane way.

The first report of the committee made 18 recommendations which the committee believed would aid in improving accountability and ensuring a timely release from detention centres for detainees following health, security and identity checks. The second report had an additional 12 recommendations, which focused on upholding the safety and security of Australia’s borders while taking a humane approach to those people seeking protection in Australia. This final report comes with a further 11 recommendations. These address the preferred infrastructure options for contemporary immigration detention; the options for the provision of detention services and detention health services across the range of current detention facilities; and the options to expand the transparency and visibility of immigration detention centres.

One of the key recommendations from this report is recommendation 4, which recommends that detention in immigration residential housing should be used in lieu of detention centres should it be deemed feasible. After reviewing submissions and public hearings, the committee believes that, while secure detention will continue to play an important role in our immigration system, evidence suggests it is not necessary to keep those people who meet the criteria for release in secure detention while they await resolution of their immigration status. Placing detainees in immigration residential housing and immigration transit accommodation for the shortest time possible would complement the government’s intention to address the prompt resolution of an individual’s immigration status. This is in line with recommendations from the second report of the committee.

Additionally, the committee has serious concerns about the appearance of a number of detention centres. In fact, recommendations 1 to 3 and 5 of this report revolve around the infrastructure and aesthetics, or lack of aesthetics, of some of the detention centres. The committee had a number of concerns about some detention centres which look more like prisons: high security levels; a lack of access to fresh, clean air; limited access to outdoor exercise areas; little privacy; and, in some circumstances, very poor levels of cleanliness. The people who are seeking refuge in our country are not criminals and the majority have fled hardships and risked their lives in search of a better future. They should not be kept in prison-like environments.

Recommendation 1 of the report that the reconstruction of stage 1 at Villawood Detention Centre remains urgent and a priority of the committee would help in eradicating the prison-like appearance. The committee noted that the government has provided $186.7 million over the next five years to redevelop that detention centre. However, the committee noted that that time frame may need to be revised due to the current concerns regarding the state of the infrastructure and facilities. Similarly, the committee suggests in recommendation 2 that the proposed upgrades of the Perth detention facility commence immediately. Although the facilities in Perth are under limited lease arrangements, they are in dire need of urgent attention. The committee has agreed that the government should examine the long-term options with the intent to establish a purpose-built, long-term facility.

The intentions of most senators on this committee were to restore justice, dignity and certainty to the treatment of those people held in immigration detention in Australia. As at 17 July this year, there were 744 men and women still detained in immigration detention centres across the country and on Christmas Island. In line with restoring justice and dignity to these people, recommendations 3 and 5 are about reducing the extreme security measures currently in place. The use of razor wire or barbed wire, electrified fencing, caged walkways and perspex barriers are seen as excessive by the committee and are a disproportionate security measure. I note that the Christmas Island detention facility was built by the previous government as a high security establishment at a cost of some $400 million. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has already taken measures to remove razor wire from all of Australia’s detention facilities except stage 1 at Villawood, which is a very welcome move.

The committee recommends in its report that it is in the best interests of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, as well as the general public, to increase the transparency of the immigration detention centres. Many media outlets are using old file footage of the immigration detention centres or using file footage of now closed detention centres for their images. Therefore, the committee has recommended that the provision of greater access to detention facilities is made available for the media. Furthermore, the committee has recommended that regularly updated information on the facilities, including statistics and detainee population, should appear on the department’s website.

Additionally, to aid in the greater transparency of our immigration detention centres, the committee has recommended that the Australian Human Rights Commission be granted a statutory right of access to all places of, and persons in, immigration detention in Australia. This will ensure that all facilities and the treatment of detainees is always as dignified and as humane as possible. That being said, the committee has suggested with recommendation 9 that the government maintain appropriate physical and mental health facilities at the Christmas Island detention centre, commensurate with the services provided at other immigration detention centres. Many of the submissions received by the committee raised concerns over the services available on Christmas Island, partially due to the geographical remoteness of the island. Some medical needs, as we know, cannot be met on the island whatsoever. Therefore, the committee has recommended the access to appropriate facilities to assist in the transparency of immigration detention in Australia.

Lastly, the remaining recommendations made by the committee are with regard to the department’s provision of services to detention centres. The committee makes several recommendations to encourage a full review of the current immigration detention service providers, to introduce mandatory and ongoing training programs for staff of the detention service providers and to make public the service standards of the immigration detention centres on the department’s website. It is hoped that with those measures the Department of Immigration and Citizenship will be able to increase the quality and effectiveness of the services that it provides to all immigrant detainees and achieve a high service standard across the board.

I conclude by thanking all of the witnesses to this inquiry, particularly the detainees themselves, their advocates and the departmental officials. I thank the committee secretariat and all of the senators and members of the joint committee who contributed to this inquiry in a very positive and meaningful way.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today on the motion to take note of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration’s third report into immigration detention, Immigration detention in Australia: facilities, services and transparency. Can I say that the Greens are extremely disappointed that the majority report of the committee does not appropriately address, in our view, the major concerns outlined throughout the inquiry process; nor does it put forward adequate recommendations for change. I have in fact put in a dissenting report because of my major concerns with the committee’s majority report.

First and foremost, the issues of transparency and the provision of suitable and sufficient services cannot effectively be dealt with without questioning the appropriateness of the privatisation of detention services. A lot of the issues and concerns that were raised throughout the inquiry process come back to the ultimate issue of our detention facilities being run by private companies. Given that the majority of individuals and organisations that provided evidence to the committee highlighted concerns about the privatisation of detention services, the fact that the committee’s report fails to reflect on this with an actual recommendation is disappointing and clearly contravenes moves towards a more transparent and accountable immigration detention system.

The Rudd government’s recent announcement that it has signed new five-year contracts for immigration detention services with GSL and Serco is disappointing and strikingly at odds with its pre-election promises. The fact that there will be two different operators for detention centres, residential housing and transit accommodation also raises concern over how the private operators will communicate with one another and the department to ensure that transparency and quality of care are maintained. It is going to be very difficult, I believe, to have a successful transition between the immigration detention centres, the residential housing facilities and the transit accommodation. It is hard to believe that this, as well as the need to coordinate with the department, will result in good-quality care, when we know already that just dealing with one private operator and the department causes problems from time to time.

In the course of the inquiry we heard numerous concerns about using external, for-profit contractors to provide immigration detention services, particularly given that there have been many instances, according to A Just Australia, one of the witnesses, where arguments regarding responsibility for service delivery between the department and service delivery contractors have resulted in unacceptable living conditions for detained people. If the arguments already happen between one private operator and the department, I hate to think what will happen when negotiations are held between two separate private operators and the department. The fact is that both GSL and Serco have backgrounds in providing prison services. The Greens do not believe that this is an appropriate way to provide a service to those vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers who are currently found in detention centres. Outsourcing is not an appropriate way of handling their claims and providing care for those vulnerable people who seek our assistance and protection, particularly when some of the detention facilities are so far removed and remote from mainland Australia.

It is for this reason that the Greens have put forward two main recommendations on how we believe the immigration detention system can be made more transparent and accountable. Firstly, we have argued in our dissenting report that the government should return all immigration detention services to public control. Let me remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that that was a promise of the Labor Party before the election. Obviously, with the signing of the two new five-year contracts, that election promise has been broken. We believe that detention services need to be returned to public control, opening up a direct line of responsibility between the department, the minister and the immigration processes and services that occur in these detention facilities. Secondly, acknowledging that that election promise has been broken and that the government has just negotiated new five-year contracts, we believe that, at a minimum, the contracts must emphasise the need to put welfare outcomes ahead of security and compliance. We must ensure that the welfare concerns of vulnerable people, those people seeking asylum and our protection, are put ahead of security and compliance. We must ensure that no private operator with only a prison services background is awarded the contract in the future.

The Greens are also concerned that the report fails to include appropriate and detailed recommendations regarding infrastructure, the security features of immigration residential housing and immigration transit accommodation, and healthcare services. Concerns were continually raised throughout the 12-month inquiry relating specifically to the inappropriateness of housing children in residential housing facilities and the overuse of immigration transit accommodation. Various other concerns were raised, which Senator McEwen alluded to in her response to the report, about healthcare services. These have not, in the view of the Greens, been dealt with in the majority report.

With regard to Christmas Island, most notably, the committee heard evidence from many witnesses criticising the current excision policy, particularly due to the remoteness of the location, which undoubtedly limits access to sufficient healthcare facilities and resources for both island residents and detainees, and access to torture and trauma counselling. These are basic services that should be available at any facility that is housing asylum seekers and refugees, and yet there is no access to them at the remote location of Christmas Island. The committee heard overwhelming evidence from refugee advocates, lawyers and individuals calling for the need for drastic upgrading of the facilities on Christmas Island to at least bring them up to a standard comparable with that required of detention centres on the mainland. I acknowledge the recommendations relating to those issues in the majority report.

Concerns were also raised around the lack of community oversight that is available when dealing with excised territories. The directors of A Just Australia argued that with no community oversight or media scrutiny ‘there is the opportunity for extremely inhumane treatment of people’ when there is a lack of transparency in the operation of these services.

Despite our recognition for infrastructure change on Christmas Island the Greens believe that, due to the extraordinary level of security at the North West Point detention centre and the inappropriateness of detaining people there, the facility should be closed immediately. That is a long-held view of the Greens and one that we continue to hold. The white elephant, as it has been described by the chair of the committee, is not an appropriate place to hold vulnerable people seeking asylum protection and refuge.

As with our previous two reports to this inquiry we continue to remain concerned about holding children in secure forms of detention. Even under the definition of ‘immigration detention’ within the Migration Act it is clear that children theoretically should not be detained in any form of secure detention. We are committed to the principle that no minor be detained in any detention centre, or facility with similar conditions to detention centres, under any circumstances. This concern was raised time and time again in relation to the residential housing facilities where, just because it was not technically named a detention centre, the idea of monitored movement, guards, security, not being able to leave the front door and being surrounded by fences means it is not an appropriate place to be housing children. Concerns were also raised about housing children in those spaces with adults who are perhaps suffering from mental health conditions because of their long-term detention. There are many reasons why we should not be housing children in any form of detention, and that includes transit detention centres as well as residential housing facilities. To ensure that the welfare of children is paramount in any immigration detention policy we have recommended that a Commonwealth Commissioner for Children be established to, among other things, specifically oversee the treatment of children in immigration detention. In establishing such a commissioner the rights of the child would be appropriately protected and the treatment of children adequately scrutinised.

While I acknowledge, as I did in the previous two reports, the work the immigration minister, Senator Evans, is doing to work towards a more humane and compassionate system of immigration, the Greens believe we still have a long way to go. We must not be detaining people in remote locations such as Christmas Island where they do not have access to facilities and where it is out of sight, out of mind. It is not a place to be holding vulnerable people. (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today also to speak on the third report of the inquiry into immigration detention in Australia by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, of which I am a member. This is the last of three reports against the inquiry’s terms of reference. We have seen the two previous reports: Immigration detention in Australia: a new beginning,released in December 2008; and Immigration detention in Australia: community-based alternatives to detention, released in May 2009.

The first report made 18 recommendations aimed at improving accountability and ensuring a timely release from detention centres—and of course I, and the members of the committee, are pleased that this government has already acted on some of the recommendations from the first report.

In the second report, tabled in May 2009, the committee looked into options available for community based alternatives to detention centres and focused on the support, both physical and emotional, required for a successful release of detainees into the community. The key recommendation here was that the government reform the bridging visa framework to fully support people released into the community, with the appropriate reporting or surety requirements.

I will not go over old ground on those two reports in the short time I have today. It should be noted, however, that the third report, Immigration detention in Australia: Facilities, services and transparency, brings this particular inquiry to completion. The third part of the report addresses the issues of options to expand the transparency and visibility of immigration detention centres, the preferred infrastructure options for contemporary immigration detention and options for the provision of detention services and detention health services across the range of current facilities. This includes immigration detention centres, immigration transit accommodation and community detention. I am pleased that the government has taken positive steps to introduce more humane and appropriate accommodation facilities through immigration transit accommodation and residential housing, but the standard of many facilities remains of concern to the committee, particularly at Perth and stage 1 of Villawood.

There are 11 recommendations overall in the third-stage report of the inquiry, which received over 144 written submissions. These submissions supported the many public hearings and visits by the committee to various forms of detention. The committee members reiterate that reconstruction of stage 1 at Villawood remains a priority of the committee. And here I would just like to point out the Rudd government has announced that it will provide $186.7 million over the next five years to help Villawood redevelopment. We also recommend that the upgrade of the Perth centre goes ahead but that the government look at developing a purpose built facility over the long term, as the lease agreement on this site will be renewable in a few years.

The committee notes that some facilities are more like the traditional concept of a prison, with razor wire, and/or barbed wire, and the committee recommends replacing this with more appropriate fencing. Immigration detention is not meant to be punitive, so it would be more appropriate if the facilities did not look, as I said, like the traditional concept of what people imagine a prison to look like. North West Point, one of the facilities on Christmas Island, has caged walkways and electrified fencing. Once again, it is recommended that this be replaced with more appropriate security infrastructure.

The geographical remoteness of Christmas Island provides a challenge to the detention service provider, organisations that provide support and other services to detainees and the local community. Some medical needs cannot be met on the island. It is difficult for the local community to provide adequate health support to a significant number of immigration detainees. Recommendation 9 is that the Australian government provide and maintain appropriate physical and mental health facilities on Christmas Island.

It is imperative also that staff dealing with detainees are aware of and trained in cultural sensitivities and appropriateness, that they have basic counselling skills, can manage conflict through negotiations and provide the appropriate security measures. To ensure that all detainees, whether onshore or offshore, receive the same level of appropriate service the committee’s recommendation 7 is that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship include mandatory staff training programs at the various facilities and that all staff dealing with detainees are assessed as competent in the areas I have just mentioned.

Recommendation 8 relates to the need for DIAC to publish the detention service standards or the current equivalent on its website, with all current and future detainees to receive a copy which has been translated into appropriate languages. It is also recommended that the Australian National Audit Office undertake an independent review of the current detention service providers and facilities within the next three years.

The committee also recommends that the Australian Human Rights Commission be granted a statutory right of access to all places of and persons in immigration detention in Australia. If Australia ratifies the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, which it recently signed, an agency with functional independence will need to be developed to conduct visits based inspection of all places of detention in all parts of Australia as well as relevant offshore locations such as immigration detention facilities. It was considered by the committee that access by Australian Human Right Commission be the minimum access.

In the past few years the government has moved towards using a more humane process of immigration residential housing and immigration transit accommodation where possible, as I have already mentioned. But it is unfortunate that some parts of the media still use old file footage of facilities that are now closed, such as the  Baxter and Woomera. Providing access to the media, with due process undertaken to protect the privacy of detainees, would increase the level of transparency and allow greater visibility of day-to-day life in the facilities. Therefore, the committee recommends that DIAC develop a set of public media protocols to be applied consistently across all immigration detention facilities and also provide the media greater access to all immigration detention facilities, but, as I said, with due care to maintaining the privacy of people in these facilities

A fair and effective immigration detention policy and strong border security measures at the same time need not be mutually exclusive. We must ensure that we are committed to the fair and equal treatment of all people, and this commitment extends to people who enter Australia illegally and are placed in detention. To this end I would like to acknowledge the work already undertaken in this area by my colleague Senator Evans, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I would also like to thank all those people who gave evidence to this committee, either in writing or verbally, the chair Mr Michael Danby, and fellow committee members, from both this place and the other. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the secretariat who worked with the committee on this report. Their professionalism and integrity at all times are to be applauded, and I thank them for their hard work.

Question agreed to.