Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, upon notice, on 31 October 2011:

(1)   In regard to internal product (Outcome 1):

  (a)   has the department had any internal audits of its internal processes conducted since 1 July 2007

  (b)   is there an internal Audit Committee within the department; if so:

     (i)   who is on the committee

     (ii)   what is the role of the committee

     (iii)   do the reports of the committee go to the Secretary of the department; if so, can copies be provided; if not, why not and do these reports go to an external audit committee

  (c)   have any audits been conducted on the quality of departmental decision making in relation to applications from Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs); if so:

     (i)   were these audits conducted by internal or external agencies

     (ii)   what did those audits reveal

     (iii)   were the audits on positive and negative decisions or just negative decisions

     (iv)   who conducted the audits and at what cost

     (v)   can copies of the audits be provided; if not, why not

     (vi)   are there any other mechanisms for looking at departmental decision making; if so, what are they

     (vii)   is the department concerned about inconsistency between decision makers, and what is the scope of that inconsistency on the caseloads of Iranians, Sri Lankans, Iraqis and Afghanis

     (viii)   what other audits have been conducted

     (ix)   have those audits been made public; if none, why not

     (x)   can copies of those audits be provided; if not, why not

     (xi)   how many cases does each case manager handle at any one time

     (xii)   what has been the highest number handled by individual case managers and when was that

     (xiii)   what is the spread of cases

     (xiv)   are they all from IMA applicants

  (d)   has the department received any requests by any agency or individuals to change the name of IMAs or other applicants after they have received their visas; if so, what are the reasons that people ask for their names to be changed on personal records.

(2)   In regard to offshore detention (Outcome 4):

  (a)   how many Serco officers were on duty on 18 October 2011 at the Northern Immigration Detention Centre

  (b)   how many detainees were in that compound on that day

  (c)   under what circumstances would there be no officers present in a compound at any given time

  (d)   what is the process of debriefing Serco officers or providing them with counselling after self-harm or other disturbing incidents

  (e)   is it true that Serco officers are not being debriefed or provided with counselling after self-harm or other disturbing incidents

  (f)   is Serco required to meet mandated occupational health and safety standards under the department's contract

  (g)   is the department satisfied that these mandated standards are being met by Serco; if so, how is it satisfied

  (h)   have there been any instances where the department has not received security incident reports from Serco; if so, on how many occasions and what were the reasons

  (i)   can the department guarantee that all security incident reports completed by Serco officers are being provided to the department; if they are not required, why not.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions:

(1)   (a)   Yes.

  (b)   Yes. The Secretary has established the Departmental Audit Committee (DAC) in compliance with Section 46 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (the FMA Act).

     (i)   Geoff Knuckey – Independent Chair

           Jackie Wilson – Deputy Chair and Deputy Secretary, Business Services Group

           Dennis Clark – Independent Member

           Gavin McCairns – Chief Risk Officer and FAS Risk, Fraud & Integrity Division

           Ken Douglas – FAS Detention Infrastructure & Services Division

           Mark Cully – Chief Economist

     (ii)   The role of the DAC is to provide independent assurance and assistance to the Secretary on the Department's audit program, risk profile, fraud control plan, control and compliance framework, and its external accountability responsibilities.

     (iii)   Yes, once cleared by the Chair of the DAC. Copies of the reports of the DAC can be provided to the Senator. There is no external audit committee. However the ANAO, as the department's external auditor, receive copies of the reports once cleared by the Chair of the DAC. The ANAO are also present, in an ex-officio capacity, for the whole of each meeting of the DAC.

  (c)   No.

  (d)   Each year the Department receives several thousand requests to amend personal details. Any person who considers that their personal information as held by the Department is incorrect, incomplete, misleading or out-of-date may request an amendment under either the Privacy Act 1988 or the Freedom of Information Act 1982. This could include the names of IMAs or other applicants.

(2)   (a) Serco has advised that for operational and security reasons Serco does not believe that it is appropriate to make staffing numbers public as it may compromise Serco's ability to maintain the security of detention facilities and the good order within detention facilities, endangering the safety of staff and those in the Department's care.

  (b) There were 380 detainees accommodated at the Northern Immigration Detention Centre as at close of business 18 October 2011.

  (c) Serco advise that staffing numbers are constantly reviewed to ensure they are operationally appropriate and in accordance with the services contract. Serco further advise that it would be unusual for there to be no officers be present in a compound. This would generally only occur during a critical incident where it is no longer safe for staff to remain in the compound. In this scenario staff would be withdrawn until a risk assessment had been completed.

  (d) Serco policies and procedures stipulate that debriefs occur after each critical incident. Debriefing following a critical incident is essential to address any operational and welfare issues that may have arisen through the incident. Debriefs are mandatory following critical incidents involving serious injury, death, serious trauma or serious service interruption. These may include but are not limited to:

An opportunity to address issues arising from critical incidents is provided to affected staff. Stress responses to intense situations are common and a debrief to address and deconstruct the events, followed by further support from Serco's employee assistance program (EAP), may assist in identifying and supporting those staff who require it.

  (e) No refer 2 (d).

  (f) The Service Provider, Serco, and all its personnel must comply with all applicable laws and Australian standards relating to occupational health and safety (including the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991 and the Work Health Safety Act 2011).

  (g) Serco must comply with any reasonable safety directions given by the Department and must provide a monthly report detailing any injury, illness, death or property damage while also detailing any action taken to prevent any recurrence or minimise the impact should a recurrence occur. For these reasons the Department is satisfied that the mandated occupational health and safety standards are being met by Serco.

  (h) The Department is not aware of any instances where the department has not received security incident reports from Serco.

  (i) The IDC Contract requires that Serco ensure that all incidents are reported and managed within the relevant timeframes. The Department monitors Serco's performance in relation to incident reporting as part of the monthly joint facility audit requirement. The Department is not aware of instances where security incident reports, completed by Serco officers, are not being provided to the department. There have, however, been instances where timeliness provisions relating to reporting of incidents were not adhered to.