ĐĎࡱá>ţ˙  kmţ˙˙˙bcdefghij˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ěĄÁ#` řżµëbjbjmĄmĄ ;fĎĎ\ăX˙˙˙˙˙˙¤ÎÎÎÎÎÎÎâŞłŞłŞł8âłL.¶śâm"îÖąžtĽŠĽŠĽŠĽŠĽdîÄIJÇdě!î!î!î!î!î!î!$[#hĂ%ś"Ά¶ŠĽŠĽ†¶†¶"ÎΊĽŠĽ'"€ € € †¶„ ΊĽÎŠĽě!€ †¶ě!€ € Î΀ ŠĽĘą `gČ«‘wČŞł Áđ^€ ě!="0m"€ _&ú._&€ _&΀ lÉĐVć>€ č]ś1„Ź'ÉÉÉ""( XÉÉÉm"†¶†¶†¶†¶âââ$„¤/âââ„âââÎÎÎÎÎÎ˙˙˙˙ EXTRACTS FROM FEBRUARY 2008 SENATE ESTIMATES HEARING ON IMMIGRATION MATTERS Extracts from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee hearing held on February 19, 2008. The full transcript is at:  HYPERLINK "http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Commttee/Estimate/Linked/5704-6.PDF" http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Commttee/Estimate/Linked/5704-6.PDF Click on the links below to find the relevant extract from the Senate committee discussion. ADDRESSING PAST ISSUES HYPERLINK \l "royal"No Royal Commission for DIAC 2  HYPERLINK \l "culture" Cultural change in DIAC 2 HYPERLINK \l "cornelia"Cases of Cornelia Rau and Vivian Alvarez Solon 3  HYPERLINK \l "compo" Compensation of people wrongfully detained 5 IMMIGRATION DETENTION HYPERLINK \l "detention_contracts"Detention contracts 6  HYPERLINK \l "detention" Detention centres 7  HYPERLINK \l "detainees_CI" Detainees on Christmas Island 11  HYPERLINK \l "hreoc_recs" HREOC report on detention matters 12  HYPERLINK \l "mand_detention" Mandatory detention and detention alternatives 13 MINISTERIAL POWERS  HYPERLINK \l "MI" Ministerial intervention 14  HYPERLINK \l "complementary" Complementary protection 17 EXCISION AND OFFSHORE PROCESSING  HYPERLINK \l "excision" Excision 17  HYPERLINK \l "visas_CI" Visa processing on Christmas Island 18  HYPERLINK \l "offshore_processing" Offshore processing 19  HYPERLINK \l "us_swap" US refugee swap 21 ONSHORE PROCESSING AND REVIEW  HYPERLINK \l "RRT" Refugee Review Tribunal and sexual orientation training 22  HYPERLINK \l "review" Review 23  HYPERLINK \l "ninety_day_process" 90 day processing 24 ASYLUM SEEKERS IN THE COMMUNITY  HYPERLINK \l "work" Work rights for asylum seekers 24  HYPERLINK \l "fortyfive" 45 day rule 24  HYPERLINK \l "tpv" Temporary Protection Visas 25 ISSUES IN THE REGION  HYPERLINK \l "afghan_returnees" Afghan returnees 26  HYPERLINK \l "iom_funding" Australian funding for IOM 27  HYPERLINK \l "AS_Indonesia" Asylum seekers in Indonesia 29  HYPERLINK \l "bordsec_indon" Border security in Indonesia 29  HYPERLINK \l "smugg_traff" People smuggling and trafficking 30  HYPERLINK \l "alo" Role of Airport Liaison Officers 32  HYPERLINK \l "enviro" Environmental displacement 33 REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT  HYPERLINK \l "refugee_nos" Refugee and Humanitarian Program numbers 34  HYPERLINK \l "sett_support" Settlement support 35  HYPERLINK \l "RRAC" Refugee Resettlement Advisory Council 36  HYPERLINK \l "AMEP" Adult Migrant English Program 36  HYPERLINK \l "TIS" Translation and interpreting services 37 CITIZENSHIP  HYPERLINK \l "citizenship" Citizenship test 38 DEPARTMENTAL ISSUES  HYPERLINK \l "stake" DIAC's stakeholder engagement strategy 47  HYPERLINK \l "media" Media monitoring service for DIAC and former minister 48 NO ROYAL COMMISSION INTO DIAC Pages 9-10 Senator ELLISON—No. Minister, can I refer you to the remarks of former Leader of the Opposition Kim Beazley in his address to the Sydney Institute on 4 August 2005. He said: We must have a Royal Commission into the functioning of Immigration. Subsequently, former shadow minister for immigration Tony Burke said on 9 February 2006 that the opposition wanted a royal commission into a number of cases dealing with detention and the department of immigration—I think you also included the minister or former ministers in that as well. It was quite a wideranging reference. After hearing the very positive opening remarks from Mr Metcalfe, I would just inquire as to whether it is still the government’s policy to have a royal commission. Senator Chris Evans—You would be aware that there was no election commitment to a royal commission into the department of immigration. I think most of those commentaries were made in relation to the very serious concern over the reports of the handling of the Vivian Solon and Cornelia Rau cases. Certainly, the Labor opposition pushed for a royal commission rather than the adoption of the Comrie and Palmer reports and the approach the government took. But during the election we did not seek to call a royal commission into the immigration department, if you like. Some events have moved on, so there will be no royal commission. Senator ELLISON—So it is fair to say then that the government is satisfied with the progress being made by the department of immigration, as outlined by Mr Metcalfe. Senator Chris Evans—I would chose my own words in relation to that matter. I am pleased to see that the department is taking seriously the Comrie and Palmer reports and is looking to implement them. It has been in close engagement with both the Ombudsman and HREOC, and I have indicated to both those offices that I am keen for that to continue. But I think the secretary would concede that cultural change is a long and fraught process that requires commitment over a long period of time. The commitment from the senior officers is there, but we are some way away from getting the sort of cultural change that is required. But I am convinced that the department has made significant progress. I am pleased that progress is occurring but it will need to continue to be driven. It is probably best described as a work in progress. CULTURAL CHANGE Pages 16-17 Senator NETTLE—I will start with the issue of cultural change that you talked about, Minister. I understand the process has been going on from Palmer and Comrie, but has there been any additional element to ensure the cultural change within the Department of Immigration and Citizenship since the new government has come in? Senator Chris Evans—I suppose the way I answer that is to say that, in my long experience of the last 11 weeks, I have been trying to tackle a range of issues, and that is one that is high on the agenda. I have taken the approach of actually trying to understand what has occurred, who is doing what and then making assessments about any changes in direction. So I have not made any decisions in relation to cultural change other than that Mr Metcalfe continues to advise me that he is driving that and also that I have briefed senior officers on the sort of approach the Rudd Labor government wants to take, and that we want to restore the reputation of the immigration department and restore public confidence in the integrity of the department. As I say, Immigration is the great nation-building department of state. There is no question that its reputation has been severely damaged in recent years, and we need to set about righting that. That will take time. One key component of that is the cultural change identified as being required, so I am very committed to the process. We have not made what you would call major changes in direction, but we will continue to monitor it and look for ways of lifting the effort. I have in the last two weeks had discussions with the Ombudsman and HREOC about those issues and sought their advice on those matters and how we might continue that progress. I indicated to both of them that I welcome their ongoing engagement. The department welcomes it as well. They are a useful sounding board and source of advice and we will continue to engage them closely. It is a work in progress and, as I say, I am confident that change is being driven by the secretary and the senior officers. But I do not underestimate how difficult that is. It takes a long time to change culture. It is easily said, but victory is not easily claimed. I am glad the committee is going to continue to take an interest, as will I, and we will just see how it goes. Senator NETTLE—Thanks, Minister. You said you had talked with senior staff about the sorts of changes that the new government wanted to lift the reputation. Can you expand anymore on that? Senator Chris Evans—There are two major aspects I have been focusing on. As I indicated in the opening address, the first is restoring our reputation for fair and proper and legal dealing with people seeking asylum in this country: that we maintain very strong border controls but that we seek to ensure people are treated fairly and that there is public confidence in the immigration system and the treatment of asylum seekers. The other focus has been on looking to restore the public confidence in the integrity of, in particular, our temporary skilled migration scheme, where there has been a lot of concern about abuse, underpayment and exploitation of those coming in and concern that they may be undermining local employment conditions. The Rudd Labor government is very committed to an ongoing skilled migration program, both permanent and temporary. But the key to retaining public confidence in those schemes is ensuring the integrity of those schemes. I think it is fair to say the previous government began to respond to concerns in the latter half of last year, but I think a lot more needs to be done. I am putting a lot of effort and the department is putting a lot of effort into that. So they are the two, if you like, priorities that I have been focusing on in the last couple of months. CORNELIA RAU & VIVIAN SOLON Pages 19-20 Senator NETTLE—They are all the questions I have on that issue but I have some more general questions. I will move on to the Cornelia Rau case and the compensation that the minister mentions. It is good to see, finally, that we may see some action. Cornelia has been writing to me about when this is going to happen, so that is good to see. I wanted to ask about the government’s legal costs associated with the Cornelia Rau and also the Vivian Solon matters. Are there figures that we could get for the government’s legal costs associated with those two matters? Mr Metcalfe—I suspect that we will need to take those on notice, but I will just check to see whether we have any information available. I am advised that costs on neither of those matters have yet been finalised. It might be something that you could ask us down the track. In relation to Ms Alvarez, of course, although the settlement occurred some time ago there is still an issue of the taxation of costs or the precise identification of the costs from her legal representatives. That is an issue that is still being settled. Until that is known the precise costs to the government are unable to be known. With Ms Rau, of course, I agree it is a very welcome development. We are very pleased that we have now got to that position. But, again, that matter is not yet finalised, as the minister indicated earlier. I think it needs to go to the Supreme Court because she is legally represented. So we would be able to provide details, but I suspect we cannot provide final details for a little while yet. If I could beg your indulgence, you may like to ask us again at the next estimates and we might be able to have a response at that stage. Senator NETTLE—Could you take the question on notice so that if there is response before then we could get it? Otherwise I will pursue it then. Mr Metcalfe—I will take it on notice and we will answer it. I suspect that we will not have a final answer by the reporting time for estimates, so it may either be a late answer or it might be advice that we cannot finalise the answer when we come back here. Senator NETTLE—Maybe you could do the cost to date for the Solon case, because that will be the bulk of the cost, I would imagine. Mr Metcalfe—I will give you the best information that we can. Senator NETTLE—With the Rau case, just from media reports and some discussions that we have had here, I understand that GSL are being countersued by the government. Is that still the case in relation to the Rau matter? Mr Metcalfe—I will ask Mr Eyers, who is the head of our litigation branch, to join us, Senator. Mr Eyers—Yes, there is a cross-claim against GSL by the Commonwealth. GSL have also cross-claimed against the Queensland government. Senator NETTLE—That is ongoing, is it? Where is that up to? Mr Eyers—That is ongoing. Despite the settlement with Ms Rau, the cross-claims will need to be finalised. Page 24 Senator BARNETT—The minister referred to the Cornelia Rau matter in his opening statements. I would like to ask one question about that relating to the co-defendant, GSL. Can the minister provide the committee with a status report on that particular matter? I have been advised that there is litigation at foot. Obviously I do not want to go to any matters that are sub judice but, to the extent that you can, can you report to the committee on GSL? Are they likely to be countersued by the government and are you seeking compensation or part compensation from them to pay the compensation to Ms Rau? Senator Chris Evans—Thanks, Senator Barnett. I think it is best that Mr Eyers answer that question. I find that in these matters I am advised to say nothing about anything, which I find frustrating. Therefore, I think I had best leave it to the officer. I am not involved in the detail of that anyway, so Mr Eyers is the best man to answer that. Mr Eyers—GSL have been cross-claimed against by the Commonwealth. They were not directly sued by Ms Rau, so they have been joined to the proceedings by the Commonwealth and we are continuing to proceed against them. The matter comes back before the court on 6 March. We will be seeking contribution from them towards the damages that will be payable to Ms Rau. Senator BARNETT—Can you advise the extent of that contribution? Mr Eyers—At this stage it is at large. It will be a matter for the court to determine. Senator BARNETT—The minister in his opening statement said that he was hopeful of a resolution in the near future regarding compensation with Ms Rau and then said there had been an ‘increased offer’, and there have been reports about that in today’s media. So, in terms of the counterclaim, you on behalf of the government would be seeking as much as possible from GSL in terms of that compensation amount? Mr Eyers—That is correct. Mr Metcalfe—I do not think we would necessary say ‘as much as possible’. I think we would say we are seeking a fair and reasonable amount in terms of their liability. I think Mr Eyers said earlier that there is a further cross-claim in relation to the state of Queensland, where she was originally detained. There was a little bit of litigation to play out but essentially, as the minister indicated earlier, the Commonwealth have made an offer to Ms Rau which we are very pleased she has accepted. That is an issue between the Commonwealth and Ms Rau. We are now working with other parties to essentially seek contributions to that compensation amount. Senator BARNETT—Just to confirm or clarify—she has accepted the offer. Is that what you just said, Mr Metcalfe? Senator Chris Evans—The terms we were advised to use, and to say no more than, on legal advice were that Cornelia Rau’s lawyers have communicated to the Commonwealth and they have accepted an offer of compensation on her behalf. The terms of settlement remain to be finalised and must be approved by the Supreme Court, in the proceedings on 16 March, as I understand. It has been beaten into me that I am not allowed to say any more, on legal advice, because it might prejudice the Commonwealth’s position. Page 60 Senator ELLISON—In relation to the case of Vivian Solon, as I understand it there was a substantial payment made for damages for wrongful detention—is that right? Mr Metcalfe—That is correct. Senator ELLISON—Then I think there was some negotiation dealing with the payment of her ‘costs reasonably and necessarily incurred’, and that went to arbitration. Is that correct? Pages 60-61 Senator ELLISON—I return to the Vivian Solon case. On 12 October 2007, the Australian newspaper reported the dispute over legal costs, in particular highlighting Mr Newhouse’s claim. It noted that there was a claim for 30.5 billable hours for a single day. The article noted that the cost issue would be resolved by way of a cost assessment in the Supreme Court. Has that been dealt with? Mr Eyers—No, at this stage Ms Solon’s lawyers are currently advising their bill of costs, and following receipt of their bill of costs the matter will then be referred for assessment to the Supreme Court. Senator ELLISON—When you say Vivian Solon’s lawyers, who are you referring to? Mr Eyers—It includes Mr Newhouse, Milne Berry Berger & Freedman, and Mr Einfeld. Senator ELLISON—Mr Einfeld as well. Does the department know whether Mr Einfeld had a practising certificate during the time that he was acting? Mr Eyers—There was a period where I understand that he did not have a practising certificate. Senator ELLISON—Has there been any action taken as a result of that? Mr Eyers—Not by the department. Senator ELLISON—But effectively he is claiming fees from the department during a time in which he did not have a practising certificate— Mr Eyers—We are waiting to see what their revised bill says about that. Senator ELLISON—What about the firm that you mentioned— Mr Eyers—Milne Berry Berger and Freedman? Senator ELLISON—Yes. There was an agreement, I think between them and their client, in relation to a conditional cost agreement with her. Are you aware of that? Mr Eyers—Yes, Senator. Senator ELLISON—Is that a valid agreement? Has the department assessed whether that is a valid agreement? Mr Eyers—That will be a matter that will be dealt with in the assessment in the Supreme Court. Senator ELLISON—Obviously that would be a concern to the department if the agreement between solicitor and client was invalid. Would that be something that the department would raise through its counsel in the Supreme Court? You say that it is going to be assessed, but it will not be canvassed— Mr Eyers—It will certainly be one of the items that will be addressed in the assessment, yes. Senator ELLISON—Because it can only be assessed if it is raised. So it is up to the department to raise it, isn’t it, unless the client protests? Mr Eyers—I am presuming they would prepare their bill on the basis of what their advice is regarding the legality or enforceability of that cost agreement. If they prepare their bill on the basis that it is enforceable, then we will have to take our advice. Senator ELLISON—We will wait and see. Has the date been set for that assessment? Mr Eyers—No. Senator ELLISON—It can only be found when— Mr Eyers—We have got to get their revised— Senator ELLISON—Is there a time limit for that within the rules under which they have to do that? Mr Eyers—No, because it was arbitration, there is no— COMPENSATION OF PEOPLE WRONGFULLY DETAINED Pages 21-22 Senator NETTLE—Minister, you mentioned in your opening statement the compensation for the 247, of which Cornelia Rau is one. Can we get an update on those others of the 247? Last time in the estimates hearings I asked about which of those 247 had been provided with information about their compensation cases. At the time of the last estimates it was three. I have an answer to a question on notice but it is only an update until June 2007. Are there any updates about which of those other 247 have been contacted about compensation? Senator Chris Evans—Before the officer replies to your question, let me say that there are two issues. One is the settlement of their immigration issues and the second is the settlement of the compensation issues. I have asked the department for advice as to how we might seek to resolve all of those as quickly as possible. One of the things I am learning as a new minister is that such things do not happen nearly as quickly as one would like. There is always a reason—a good reason—that sometimes slows these things. But I am anxious to resolve these issues both for those 247 people and for the department. It is important that we deal with those issues and move on and look to provide a professional service with integrity. The department has obviously learnt from some of those lessons. Clearly, dealing with those cases, getting them off the department’s back, if you like, and also allowing those people to move on with their lives is very much a priority. But there are two issues: the compensation, to which you refer, and some of them have outstanding immigration and visa issues. I am keen to resolve those as well. Senator NETTLE—Thanks, Minister. Mr Eyers—Letters have been sent to 141 individuals advising them of the department’s review of their case. They are all the individuals for whom the department currently has addresses. Senator NETTLE—Is that letter in relation to the finalisation of their immigration status or compensation? Mr Eyers—The letters advise them that the department is undertaking a review of their case and will be contacting them further with further details as the matters progress. Senator NETTLE—I note the Ombudsman’s report into these matters goes through a number of those cases. One of the cases in the Ombudsman’s report is referred to as Mr E. He is a detainee whom I have met on several occasions, and other members of the committee have met with him as well. He contacted me upon receiving the letter that has gone out to everyone. He was concerned because he is one of those cases that falls into the ‘other’ legal issues section of the Ombudsman’s report. He came as a refugee and had section 501 applied to him. He is one of those cases that have an outstanding deportation order. I know that the Ombudsman recommended that those cases involving people with outstanding deportation orders be resolved. Can you give us any update on how many people are in that circumstance, that is, who have an outstanding deportation order on them, and how that is being resolved? Mr Correll—Of the original 247 people involved here, 75 have an unresolved immigration status at the present stage. There are 27 on bridging visas and 26 on temporary visas. There are five with character concerns. Senator NETTLE—The Mr E described in the Ombudsman’s report has on several occasions submitted information about his case to the department. I understand and welcome the idea of doing the review but why was it necessary for a person to resubmit all their personal information as part of that review? Ms O’Connell—I cannot answer in relation to that specific case and what it was that he was asked to submit. I will follow up and find out what it is that he has been asked to submit. The minister’s opening comments on this matter were that he is going to have a look at all of those cases, and that will include these cases with a character concern. Senator NETTLE—I have a copy of it here. It looks like a pretty standard personal details form which goes on for several pages. It is just about their name and all of that information which I would have thought would have already been something that the department had. Ms O’Connell—It was probably along the lines of requesting an update of personal information in case there were some changes—for example, address changes. With hindsight it may well have been better to have pre-populated the form with the information that we already held in relation to that person when asking for an update. But I am happy to take that on notice and find out. Senator CHRIS EVANS—I have not seen the form, but there are often changes in, say, the number of children and all those sorts of things which then impact on the case. I accept your point but I would also want to make sure that the department had the very latest information. Senator NETTLE—This is a question to the minister: the Ombudsman’s report into the use of 501 had a recommendation which suggested legislative reform to section 501 of the act so that it did not capture longterm Australian residents. The Ombudsman’s recommendation was to bring that in line with section 200 of the act. The previous government did not respond to that recommendation. Does the new government have an attitude in relation to that particular recommendation? DETENTION CONTRACTS Pages 20-21 Senator NETTLE—That leads me to a question to the minister. I note that the Labor Party policy is about detention centres being managed by the public sector. Could you give us any update on any movement that has happened in that arena? Senator Chris Evans—As you know, the tenders for the renewing of the contract had been underway under the previous government and they are fairly well advanced. Currently I am considering how we handle that matter—whether we continue with the renewal of the contract or not, given the stage of negotiations and the costs already incurred. I hope to be in a position to make a decision about that very shortly. Senator NETTLE—For the tenders that have gone out, what time period is the contract for? Senator Chris Evans—It is a five-year new contract. It has been advertised, tenders have been called and there have been a whole range of processes. I think Mr Metcalfe can help you with the detail, but the process has been extended as a result. Mr Metcalfe—Yes, it is fair to say that we are well advanced. We are at the evaluation stage and, as the minister alluded to, this has been a very expensive exercise. It is a very complex series of contracts and a great deal of effort has been put into getting us to the stage that we are currently at. Senator NETTLE—I note there is a contract between Health Services Australia and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship which runs until 2012 on the list of government contracts. Is that intended to remain in place and are there penalties associated with the breaking of the contract, or indeed of other contracts, were the government to make a decision to do so? Mr Metcalfe—If I can clarify, we have contractual arrangements with Health Services Australia for essentially vetting visa applicants in relation to health issues. And, of course, we have arrangements in relation to health services for detainees. Is there one particular contract you are referring to? Senator NETTLE—The one I am looking at looks like it might not be for detainees. It says ‘division of migration and temporary entry’. It is for $140 million. Mr Metcalfe—Sorry, Senator. I think we now have the right officer at the table. Could you ask us the question again? Senator NETTLE—It was about whether that contract is going to remain in place until that period and if there are any penalties associated with any change of government policy in relation to it. Mr Parsons—There was a contract that ran last year which selected Health Services Australia as the successful tenderer to provide that health vetting service that Mr Metcalfe referred to. My understanding is that that contract will run the advertised course. Mr Metcalfe—There is certainly no change of government policy. The new government certainly believes that people should be subject to health checking if they are coming to Australia to live here, work here or come into classroom situations or whatever. Senator NETTLE—Yes. It is about that being done by a private company, but I note the comments we had earlier were about detention services. With the detention centre contracts, were the government to make a decision in line with the Labor policy about them being publicly operated, are there penalties associated with the contracts, say, if you needed to break a contract in order to make that decision of the government? Senator Chris Evans—That is part of the whole issue. A great deal of expense has already been incurred in terms of the renewal of the contract by the Commonwealth and by the tenderers, and there are issues of compensation, as we are seeing with other tender processes. So I am trying to weigh all that up at the moment and the government will make a decision shortly. As I said, we have a situation in which the process is a long way down the track, it is a judgement call for government and we will make it shortly. Pages 90-91 Senator ELLISON—Still on 1.5, earlier this morning Senator Nettle asked questions about GSL’s contract. I understand that there were some sensitivities surrounding this. If I recall, the contract has gone a fair way down the track and there is a question of compensation for tenderers. I do not know whether Senator Nettle asked the question of how long the contract had to run and whether there would be an interim contract put in place while this was being looked at. Senator Chris Evans—I will just make it clear that there has been no decision taken by government in terms of the longer term. What I did was suggest that one of the issues is that, if one brings to an end the contracting service—as the previous government experienced with a couple of Defence contracts—you are then fronted with the cost of potential compensation claims from tenderers who have been through the whole process. But I will get Mr Metcalfe to give you the details about the arrangements he has put in place. Mr Metcalfe—As we indicated earlier today, we are currently well advanced in a tender evaluation process for, from memory, the three tenders that were issued by the department in relation to the provision of services at detention centres. That is a very major undertaking for the tenderers, given that it relates to services in all those different facilities that we mentioned before. Indeed, during that tender process the previous government decided to close Baxter detention centre, and that required an extension of time for adjustments to be made. My recollection, and Mr Correll will correct me, is that we have extended GSL’s contract until the end of this year—until December—to enable the new government time to assess its positions as to future activities and, as necessary, any transition arrangements that may or may not occur. Currently, GSL are providing the services until the end of this year, and the issue as to future services beyond that is a matter for government. DETENTION CENTRES Pages 81-85 Senator NETTLE—Does the new government have any plans to change the status of any of the existing detention centres, including those that are mothballed? Senator Chris Evans—No. As you would be aware, the Christmas Island capacity and the new facility there will be available for use by the department in the next month or two. That has a capacity for 400 with a surge capacity of 800. In addition, there are other DIAC assets on Christmas Island that allow for the accommodation of staff and perhaps others. While the numbers in detention have fallen dramatically since the 2005 changes, I am pleased to say, we nevertheless have to plan for the potential of a large number of boat arrivals at one time. Hopefully, that will not occur but, although we have the Christmas Island capacity, I have asked the department to provide me with some advice about what additional capacity we might have if we needed it with a large number of people arriving in a short space of time. The detention centres that are closed are closed. One of the officers might like to say something about Port Hedland because that is slightly different. Perhaps these officers can take you through each of the centres and that will give you a better picture than me giving you a general answer. Mr Lamond—Villawood, as you know, is operating. That has a capacity of 560 in normal operation. That is broken up into places for 70 individuals in stage 1; 490 in stages 2 and 3; and we have the capacity to house 34 people in residential housing accommodation which is adjacent to the IDC. There is no proposed change in the status of that, although we have had discussions with the minister about how we might improve the amenity at the IDC in both the short term and the longer medium term. The Melbourne IDC at Maribyrnong is fully operational. Over the last couple of years that centre has been subject to refurbishment. It can accommodate 70 people, with an additional 30 taking it up to 100 in surge capacity. We are nearing the stage of completing immigration transit accommodation nearby. That will be able to house 20 people on the basis of short-term accommodation. These are people who are picked up at the airport, for example, for quick turnarounds. We do not necessarily think they are either a security or a flight risk. The Melbourne immigration transit accommodation has been constructed as basically low security, reasonably high quality. The fit-out is just about to finish. We will put people there for a day or so—very short term—until they can get on the plane back to the country they last came from or country of origin. We have a similar facility operating in Brisbane, the Brisbane immigration transit accommodation. That can house 20 people. That has been operating since November. From memory, we have had something like 14 people there. I will check that detail and if necessary correct it. We have had 14 individuals through that facility again without any problems. We have the immigration detention facility in Darwin. That has a capacity of 420 in two compounds. The construction work at the second compound is just about nearing completion. So it will be fully operational. That centre focuses on the accommodation and processing of illegal foreign fishers that are apprehended in the MOU area in the northern fishery zone. For example, this year we have accommodated 740 over the period 1 July to 8 February. They are the most recent stats. That number is in fact down on recent years when much higher numbers of foreign fishers were apprehended. But we do have the capacity there to manage them appropriately. In Adelaide we have a temporary accommodation facility. It is not an IDC. It is two units which are guarded by GSL. We can accommodate 12 people there. We have plans to build an immigration transit accommodation facility there. We are in the preliminary stages of conversation with the South Australian government to acquire land in Adelaide. Then we will move into a design and build stage. You have heard the minister mention the facility on Christmas Island. That will shortly be completed to absolutely fit-for-purpose standard—a brand-new IDC that can accommodate 400 people in practical operation and up to 800 in surge. That is an extraordinarily high-quality centre. It has been engineered and built to last for about 30 years. When you think of the nature of the environment in which it is, that is not a bad objective. Finance has managed the construction and building of that. As I said, it is due to reach fit-for-purpose soon; it was practically complete in November last year. Fault finding has been carried out and, reflecting the minister’s comment, we will take possession of it some time in the next month. We will need a short period of time to check that the communications and the internal systems are all operating and then it will be available for work. The current IDC at Phosphate Hill has a capacity of 100 for practical operation and about 208 for surge in permanent accommodation. If it is the dry season, we can accommodate another 400 in tents in another compound nearby. It is our intention to put that into mothballs and keep it as a possible contingency facility for the short term while we make sure that the facility proper works. The longer term intention and understanding is that that would be removed and the land returned to the community. Opposite the facility at Phosphate Hill there is a construction camp which was built to accommodate workers who were building the new centre. That is ours. That will be put into mothballs because that may, as the need arise, serve as either accommodation for staff, or families should we get large numbers of families arriving on the island as authorised boat arrivals. This government has indicated quite clearly the policy of no children in an IDC. We would accommodate children and families outside the centre. We would use some other accommodation that we have there and, as necessary, move our staff into the temporary and short-term accommodation. We have a mothballed facility on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, which can accommodate 48. That can be turned on as needed. The Port Hedland facility is now in contingency mode and, indeed, has been leased to a company based in Western Australia called Auzcorp. They are running it as an accommodation unit to handle the accommodation pressures in the Western Australian mining industry. Auzcorp took over that facility in December. They have been undertaking a range of construction activities, to ensure that they can secure council approval to operate as a motel. It needs variations to the fences, which they are paying for. A little further down the track they propose to bring in ensuite demountables to add to the amenity of the place. The Commonwealth will start receiving rental from Auzcorp on 1 March. The facility has been leased for a period of two years, and an element of the lease is that, on two months notice, if the necessity arises, we can recover that and use it for emergency accommodation, should we need to handle larger numbers of people. We had some residential housing in Port Augusta but, with the closure of Baxter, we have also closed that facility. As both the secretary and the minister have remarked, Baxter is totally closed and has been handed back to the Department of Defence. That is a rundown on the facilities we have available and the state of play. Senator NETTLE—You did not mention Perth. Mr Lamond—I am sorry. I have jumped over it. We have the Perth IDC, at Perth airport. That has accommodation for 42, with a short-term peak of an additional 18, taking it to 60. There is no change in its status, but over the next 18 months to two years we will be undertaking—as I think may have been mentioned in previous estimates—some upgrades to the accommodation. Senator Chris Evans—May I remind you, Mr Lamond, that forgetting Perth is a career-ending move! Mr Lamond—I have so much to look forward to! Go the Eagles—or Fremantle, depending what the team is! At Perth, we also have some residential housing—basically three three-bedroom units—about a 10-minute drive from the Perth IDC, which can accommodate 20 individuals. That currently has six people in it. CHAIR—Mr Lamond, how many people are currently on Christmas Island? Mr Lamond—We have two people in detention on Christmas Island, in the IDC. CHAIR—In the new— Mr Lamond—No, in the old IDC. The new IDC is not yet operational. We need to make sure when the systems are in, for example, all the electronic doors will open as necessary. So it just the turnkey. CHAIR—When are you planning for that to be operational? Mr Lamond—We will receive it from the department of finance in the next months, and it will be available for use from April. CHAIR—All right. What about the temporary detention centre that has been used? The plans are to return that land to the community. What will you do with those demountables—ship them off island again to somewhere? Senator Chris Evans—Senator Crossin, can I just intervene and say that the department has got some plans but I have also indicated that I want to review facilities on Christmas Island. First of all, I think there are actually six people on Christmas Island: the two in the detention centre and the family that arrived. Are they still there? Mr Lamond—Yes, the Ridwans—a husband and wife and two children. Senator Chris Evans—They are out in the accommodation—one of the duplexes, probably the best standard housing we have got. I am keen to review that. As you would understand, I do not want to go into a lot of detail but, if you have a 400-bed major institution, you have to decide at what stage you open it. Do you open it for two people? CHAIR—That was my next question. Senator Chris Evans—Have you got the answer for me? CHAIR—I do, actually, but perhaps I should not put it on record here! Senator Chris Evans—Seriously, the point is that we will in a month or so have that facility handed over to us. Quite logically, you would not start operating it with all of the costs associated with that for two people, so there are a range of decisions like that to be made. I have asked for a cost-benefit analysis on how many you would want to accommodate before you opened it, and what the costs are of care and maintenance versus operating it for a small number of people—all those sorts of decisions. We have some better community opportunities outside of that facility, so it is a question of looking at all the options that would allow us to accommodate people in the best way possible. But, obviously, those plans will be a sequence of arrangements. If you were dealing with 100, 300, 500 or 600 people, the arrangements would be different. I have asked for advice from the department in looking at our options in that regard for when the facility comes on line. CHAIR—Just to clarify, in respect of the temporary detention centre up on Phosphate Hill, will you remove those demountables from the island? Mr Lamond—We have not had a conversation with the minister about what might happen, but the assets themselves were second hand when the department acquired them. They have been in operation for a lengthy period of time. For example, when you walk on them, the floors are starting to deteriorate, as is the fabric of the walls. The question might be whether we actually rescue what we can and then just dispose of the rest. It would not be an economic proposition to move them from Christmas Island in the condition they are in. We estimate that we probably have about a one- to two-year useable lifetime left in them. Senator Chris Evans—The key point, Senator Crossin, is that I am reviewing all of that: the stock, the use of it, and the possibilities of how we might use the various capabilities the department has on Christmas Island, including staff accommodation, and we are happy to talk to the community about those things. I visited the island not long after becoming minister and have looked at all the facilities. Mr Lamond is right: a lot of the stock, as you would understand, is ageing. But, equally, some of it is more suitable for accommodating families et cetera than the new facilities. So it is a question of seeing how we can mix and match and meet whatever demands might be put on the place. We are in the process of reviewing those options. CHAIR—I understand that the construction camp on Phosphate Hill is due to just stay as it is for the time being. Mr Lamond—Yes, that will be put into care and maintenance until, as the minister has said, we make a number of decisions about how best to operationalise Christmas Island and how whatever we do on Christmas Island actually blends in with and supports, rather than taxes, the community more generally. Senator Chris Evans—Again, that could possibly be used for families. CHAIR—I am just getting to that. What is happening to the bedsit units on what is locally known as ‘Thredbo’? Mr Lamond—I have not heard it called that, Senator. CHAIR—You have seen it, though? Mr Lamond—Yes, we have. CHAIR—Are families accommodated there, or is that for staff? Mr Lamond—Families are not in the bedsit units, but we have 10 duplexes. There are five buildings that are duplex accommodation, so there are essentially two houses, each with three bedrooms. That is where the families have been accommodated: the 16 individuals who turned up at the offshore oil facility and the four individuals who, more recently, were located on Ashmore Reef. As a footnote, they were actually on the island earlier, were returned to their country of origin and have now come back. CHAIR—What are you using the single units on the hill for? Mr Lamond—They are for accommodation for staff. At the time when the centre is operational— CHAIR—Yes, I know. I know the history, well and truly. Senator Chris Evans—One of the considerations, as I understand it, is that to operate the 400-bed new facility we would need in excess of 300 staff. So the more people who are detained, the more people you have to staff. Some of the facility which you might use in other circumstances to accommodate persons you then would need for staff, so it is a complex matrix, depending on the numbers there. The facility would require a lot of staff if it were operated close to full capacity. CHAIR—If we ever see 400 people again. Where is the temporary facility you are talking about on Cocos Island? Is that inside the quarantine station? Mr Lamond—Yes, but it is not in the part where the elephants were housed. CHAIR—I was going to say, the last time I looked there were four elephants there. Mr Lamond—No. There is accommodation for, I think, 48 people. CHAIR—When was the last time it was used? Mr Lamond—It has some brick and tile buildings that are kept on a care and maintenance basis, and it has not had people in it in immigration detention. Currently there are a number of individuals who are just residing there on the basis that their ship beached on Cocos. It was a safety of life at sea issue, so a number of sailors were taken off while their boat is repaired—it is a larger boat. They are in the centre, but not as people in immigration detention. Senator TROOD—I just want to clarify: you were saying that Phosphate Hill facilities could last, perhaps, for one to two years at most. But from what the minister has said, something is going to happen well before that period of time. That is my understanding of the position. Mr Metcalfe—I think Mr Lamond has said that some of the Phosphate Hill facilities are decaying. They were second-hand when they were obtained and, notwithstanding regular maintenance, are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. What I think the minister has said is that he has asked the department to give him advice on the full range of facilities that we have on the island—the new centre that will become available to us soon from the Department of finance, the existing centre on Phosphate Hill, the construction camp which is in that area, the duplex accommodation we own and the units at Thredbo—to enable the right mix and options that the government might need into the future. We particularly need to bear in mind that since the policy changes in 2005, the accommodation of women and children has occurred not in detention facilities but in residential housing on the island. All of those issues are under consideration and we will provide advice to the minister in the near future. Senator Chris Evans—Mr Metcalfe put it very diplomatically, but the bottom line is the facility was designed in 2001 under the previous government’s then policy. If we were to have a large number of families and children arrive, and if we were not to maintain the other facilities, we would have to house those women and children in that facility. I do not want to describe it as high security, but it is a very secure facility. Given the previous government changed its policy in 2005, the building does not reflect the 2005 policy in terms of families and children. It is a serious issue, and one of the reasons I am keen to look at other options is to give force to the 2005 policy. I may want to make changes to that as well, but if we had large numbers of families, we could not meet those policy objectives if we did not use those other facilities—it is a real problem for us. While there will be a shiny new facility, we have that issue of large numbers of families and kids arriving. Senator NETTLE—I will stick with Christmas Island for a bit. Can you give us the total cost to date of the new centre? Mr Metcalfe—If we provide a figure, I will just ask that we provide the caveat that the actual construction has been under the responsibility of the Department of Finance and Deregulation, so the most accurate costing will probably come from that department. If we have a figure we can provide, we will just ensure that we check with them that it is the most accurate figure. Senator Chris Evans—There is not much change from $400 million. Mr Lamond—The estimate that I have in my briefing is a cost of $396 million. Pages 88-89 Senator NETTLE—I want to ask some questions about the Villawood detention centre, and in particular the HREOC recommendation in relation to stage 1 of the Villawood detention centre—the recommendation that it be demolished and replaced. What is the government’s response to that recommendation? Senator Chris Evans—My own personal view is that stage 1 is totally unacceptable. The conditions there are appalling and I am very anxious to pursue what we can do in that regard. The department can give you their advice in terms of previous planning for a redevelopment of the site. I think the idea of a redevelopment of the site is probably the most plausible one. There is no doubt that there are serious issues with Villawood stage 1. I think what is not widely understood though is that a number of the people detained there are people with very serious criminal convictions. These are not bedraggled families of asylum seekers; some of these people have very serious criminal histories and are awaiting decisions about potential deportation. There is the sort of problem we were talking about earlier here: they have come out of the prison system and they have ended up there. The bottom line is that as part of that you have to provide not only suitable accommodation but also secure accommodation. So it is unacceptable. The department is very firmly of that view as well. Mr Metcalfe can explain to you where we are at in terms of the budgetary processes, but I am very keen to get that redeveloped. I must say that on my visit there I was also very much of the view that the management unit was not something that was acceptable either. Senator NETTLE—The management unit in which stage? Senator Chris Evans—In stage 3. That is effectively where they move people out to. In my view that is not acceptable. I am not sure whether the Ombudsman reported on the management unit. My personal view is that it is totally unacceptable as well. So we are at one with the Ombudsman in terms of the need for significant changes to be structural accommodation at Villawood. Perhaps Mr Metcalfe can explain where we are at with the sort of budgetary decision making. Mr Metcalfe—I might just add to the minister’s comment that the department has, and has for some years, regarded the facilities at Villawood as being far from optimal. Indeed, stage 1 is a very poor, old facility which provides very poor amenity to those people who are resident there and particularly difficult working conditions for staff who are providing services there. By contrast, we have been successful in refurbishing Maribyrnong detention centre. I do not know you have had the opportunity to visit Maribyrnong recently, but it is very much the case that when proper, modern facilities are provided that the level of tension associated with detention drops significantly, that better services can be provided, that care and management is easier—it is a win-win for all concerned. The Ombudsman and the human rights commissioner have spoken positively about that as an example of what can be done. In relation to the Villawood, the previous government had considered various options for its redevelopment. There has been quite extensive consideration over a number of years, including whether or not there were other sites in the Sydney area which might be suitable. The conclusion reached last year was that there was really no other site, no greenfield site, suitable. There is money in the forward estimates—from memory about $170 million or so—for the redevelopment of Villawood. How the government may wish to proceed with that is an issue for the current budget process. That, of course, is our hope and expectation, subject to all of the various approval process within government, the Public Works Committee and other areas—that that will allow us to ultimately replace stage one with a much more modern facility and to refurbish stages 1 and 3 to provide at least much more modern amenity in that section, which is the old migrant centre. Even if that does occur—and that is something that I am very, very keen to advance in every way that I possibly can—realistically it will be some years before those facilities can be built, just given the lag times in approval processes and building times. So one issue the department is also considering is whether funds are available within overall budget situations for some shorter term remediation work, taking into account the human rights commissioner’s very, very reasonable assessment of the facilities as being woefully substandard. Those issues are things that I would hope to be able to update you on at the next estimates hearings. Page 90 Senator NETTLE—They are all the questions that I have for that area. We were talking about visiting Villawood. I will have to try and see if I have better luck getting into Villawood under this government. I have not had success under the previous government. Senator Chris Evans—Senator Nettle, I could get you a bed for a week there if you want. In fact— Senator NETTLE—The last government would not let me in. Senator Chris Evans—I would have thought that they might have wanted to lock you up there for a week. On that general point, I have asked the department to provide me with advice about how we might have more transparency and openness about these centres. Fear and myths are perpetrated when people do not know what is occurring. I am keen to have more openness about how those centres operate. You are more than welcome to visit the centre, Senator Nettle, as are any other members of parliament. I am happy to facilitate that. It is my intention to pursue opportunities for others to visit. This has to be bound by (1) security and (2) the privacy of people in the centre, but I am keen for people to understand how it operates. I would be very keen to give Senator Ellison the opportunity to visit the centres. I am sure that he would find that useful, as I did. I am also keen to do that in relation to the Christmas Island facility. I took some of the local senior community people out with me when I went in early January. I have asked the department to ensure that there is greater community liaison about access to that facility. I understand that there is a rumour that there is an underwater submarine centre and that in fact the facility is not a detention facility but a submarine base. In order to help dispel some of those wilder claims it would be better if people had a look at it. I am keen for that to happen. Generally, we will be looking to encourage people to enter. As I said, if you contact my office, Senator Nettle, I would be happy to organise for the department to take you in and give you a tour. Senator NETTLE—Thank you. DETAINEES ON CHRISTMAS ISLAND Page 87 Senator NETTLE—Can you provide me with information on the two men in the current Christmas Island detention centre and where their cases are up to? Can anyone help with that? Senator Chris Evans—One of the officers can help with the current status. The department have briefed me on what is a fairly difficult case, and I met one of the men when I was on Christmas Island. Mr Hughes might be the best to give the official status report. Mr Hughes—The cases are still in process. Both of the cases are very complex. They involve character issues going back over a very long period. They involve ongoing consultation with UNHCR and we have not reached a final decision yet. Senator NETTLE—How long have they been there now? Mr Hughes—Since October 2006. Senator NETTLE—Can I also ask about the family on Christmas Island? What is the current status of their case? Mr Hughes—The current status is that their cases are being processed and we have not reached a determination yet. Senator NETTLE—When did they arrive? Mr Hughes—I am not sure of the period of time. I will just check. Mr Metcalfe—It was late last year. We will see if we have a date, but it was in November or December, from memory. Senator Chris Evans—I think it was December. I was the minister at the time so it must have been December. HREOC REPORT ON DETENTION MATTERS Pages 89-90 Senator NETTLE—I know there is a department response on the HREOC report, but is there a separate government response that comes for that or not? Mr Correll—It is a departmental response that is provided. There has been an initial overall response to the HREOC report. The department works very closely with HREOC on these issues and the vast majority of the recommendations are supported. A more detailed recommendation-by-recommendation response is currently being finalised. Senator NETTLE—I am just checking the process. I have seen the DIAC response, the department response, but there is not a separate government response to that—it is just a departmental response, is that right? Mr Correll—It is a departmental response. Senator NETTLE—Can I just ask about three of the recommendations in that? We have already talked about one of them. I want to ask about recommendation 9, on children in detention. It says: In the event that they are detained for longer than three weeks, DIAC— that is, the department— should arrange some educational activities for juveniles detained at Darwin motels. I want to ask about the department’s response to three recommendations in particular. Mr Correll—In that particular case, in relation to juveniles it is really referring to situations involving illegal foreign fishers in Darwin. In relation to illegal foreign fishers, our primary objective is to return them to their home country absolutely as quickly as possible, and the turnaround is relatively speedy. In relation to that particular recommendation, where for any reason there is a delay, there would not be an objection—we would support the notion of that—but only where there was a delay occurring, and we would normally not expect it to be occurring, we would be looking to return them as a matter of urgency. On average, the amount of time spent in detention in the Darwin facility by illegal foreign fishers is something like two weeks, so it is a relatively fast turnaround. Senator NETTLE—When you say you would support that occurring where there was a delay, does that mean that you would support somebody else doing it or that you would facilitate it to occur? Mr Correll—We would look to facilitate that, where it was appropriate, but only in the circumstances where the primary objective—that is, rapid return—was not able to be achieved. Senator NETTLE—The two other ones I wanted to ask you about are in the section ‘Education and recreational activities’. There is one about Villawood that states: Villawood Immigration Detention Centre should explore options for detainee access to books. Options include: visits to a local library, visits by a local librarian and internet lending. Is there anything you can comment about in response to that recommendation? Mr Lamond—Subject to conversations again with the minister, and as Mr Correll indicated, the recommendations are supported. We will be having discussions with GSL, the service provider, about excursions and an extension of the excursion policy, consistent with the recommendations made by HREOC. They make a number of recommendations about different things—for example, soccer games. We will work with GSL to work out the risk analysis, making sure we exercise our duty of care properly, not only to the people in detention but to staff and to the community more generally. To the extent that we can provide a greater range of activities, we will be talking with the minister about getting approval for that. Senator Chris Evans—Mr Lamond, you do not need to be so careful. I indicated to the secretary that I think it is a very sensible recommendation from the commissioner. As I understand it, the department’s firm advice—as it was in the evidence given by Mr Metcalfe in terms of Maribyrnong—is that when one denies people activity and opportunity and they are detained you increase the potential for disruptive, antisocial behaviour and frustration. As Mr Lamond said, within a reasonable risk analysis we ought to encourage greater activity because that will make life better for the detainees and a lot easier for the staff and the overall management of the detainees. I think it is a win-win situation. Subject to those sorts of discussions about the risk management, I think it is a very sensible recommendation from the commissioner and it is one that we are going to action. Senator NETTLE—That is access to activities. I was asking specifically about the one for books, but you are including that in the overall activities. Senator Chris Evans—I am saying that as a general approach. I understand there was some sort of kneejerk reaction to the capacity for activity as a result of an incident involving one detainee, and a former minister clamped down on it. There are risks associated with it. There are risks with all sorts of things, like parole systems et cetera. You have got to balance the risks against the benefits. I think the commissioner’s recommendations are sound and we will look to activate them, while looking to manage any risks. Senator NETTLE—There is one other recommendation I wanted to ask about. It states: DIAC should cease the policy which prohibits detainees from enrolling in courses leading to a qualification. DIAC should allow long-term detainees to enrol in substantive education courses at TAFE and other institutions ... What can you tell me about that one? Senator Chris Evans—The best answer is not to have long-term detainees, isn’t it. Mr Correll—Indeed. That goes to the situation where one does not want to have people in a position of having to participate in extended training courses like that. Having said that, in looking at the whole area of activities and in examining those recommendations, accredited training courses should be on the table. It is certainly something that we would be looking to give advice to the minister on in the follow-up to those recommendations to ensure that there is maximum flexibility and maximum opportunity in relation to the activities that are available—within a risk based approach. MANDATORY DETENTION AND DETENTION ALTERNATIVES Pages 92-93 Senator ELLISON—We will compare notes in May. A lot of the ground has been covered in some of the questions that have been asked. The former shadow minister for immigration, Tony Burke, said repeatedly: A Labor government would only detain these individuals for health, security and identity checks. They would then be released. The Deputy Prime Minister has said in the past, ‘Whilst retaining mandatory detention as our policy for the proper purpose of health, identity checks and getting processing happening, we are actually putting forward a whole new detention model, which includes the use of open hostels.’ I think that is a point of difference between the government and the coalition, in relation to past practice. Once these health, character and identity checks have been carried out, will unauthorised arrivals—illegal foreign fishers and visa overstayers—then be released into the community? Senator Chris Evans—First of all, those comments by the shadow minister were actually in relation to unauthorised arrivals. We made it clear during the election campaign that we would retain mandatory detention. I am certainly looking at options. They are issues under consideration by me, and by the government more generally. Since taking up the portfolio, I have been impressed by the significance of the changes made in 2005. The change in approach by the previous Howard government has resulted in a very large decrease in the numbers in detention. Some of that has been driven by other factors, but the figures went down steadily since that change, and are now not at record low levels, but certainly very close to record low levels. The former government also started a number of alternative housing options, and I am keen to assess and pursue those. The community care option is one that is being assessed. They have had quite a deal of success in persuading persons to return voluntarily. An interesting by-product of having them out in an environment that is a little less threatening and institutional is that a greater percentage of people are choosing to return home voluntarily, having been in that situation under a trial commenced by the previous government. There are some innovative things happening already. I want to have a look at those, and look at the options that we have got. You would be well aware of the legal responses and the correctional services responses: in that context you have jail, parole, security bracelets, reporting regimes and curfews, et cetera. I do not want to draw a direct comparison, but one of the things that strikes me most is that the options in the migration and detention area are very limited in comparison. I am keen to pursue what other options might be available to us in order to better manage the cohort, as it were. Senator ELLISON—And you would be looking at those things you have just mentioned—the correctional services approach? I am not referring only to those, but to some of them. Senator Chris Evans—It just struck me that there are all those options within correctional services. When I came to the portfolio, the options I seemed to be presented with were: ‘You can lock them up or you can let them go’. The previous government had started looking at, and developing, some of those different housing options. I was keen to look at some examples of how other countries better manage the cohort, if they are assessed as not being a threat. I do not want to commit myself too far—I am just giving you an idea about my thinking. I am certainly keen to look at whatever options are open to us to better manage those that we detain. Senator ELLISON—Similarly, with people who are on appeal and have previously been kept in detention: would you look at allowing them into the community once they have lodged an appeal, or would it be the status quo? One of the problems we have is that people say, ‘Look, they are in there for such a long time.’ But as I said to someone the other day, if you lodge an appeal there are so many rungs to go through that by necessity it takes time, and so they are in detention for that period of time. Mr Metcalfe—The whole rationale and legal basis of immigration detention can be summed up by the word ‘availability’—that if a person arrives in Australia and their identify and circumstances are unknown they are available so that the question of those circumstances and of whether Australia may have any obligation under international law in relation to that person can be resolved; or that if people are visa overstayers or potential criminal deportees they are available for resolution of their case or for removal, whatever that might happen to be. As the minister indicated, that issue of availability can be achieved in a number of ways. Under arrangements initiated by the previous government the range of options did increase. It increased from being allowed into the community on some form of temporary visa or bridging visa and it expanded from being in detention to there being now a range of detention infrastructure—from detention centres, residential housing and transit accommodation centres, to the concept of so-called residential determinations—which is essentially a recognisance that a person will stay in a particular place and report regularly—and through to a looser form of reporting arrangements. The minister has indicated that there are even more options that might be available to ensure that availability for a person to go through some further form of process. The issue you raise of review and litigation has been a vexed issue, not only for us but for all immigration authorities in comparable countries, because of the potential and the right of people to seek review of decisions, whether it is merits review or judicial review and there being multiple layers of review. Some people do in fact spend lengthy periods of time pursuing their particular circumstance. Ultimately, it is an issue, I think, for the department as to what the correct response is in each circumstances to ensure the availability of that person. Is there a necessary reason for the safety of the community or a reason associated with the person’s own record of failure to comply with other arrangements to keep that person in a more formal detention arrangement? Or is there an appropriate option through that whole range of options the minister has just outlined which might include some form of loose reporting arrangement, with many options in between? That is where policy has been taking us for some time, particularly since the previous government’s changes from June 2005, and that is an area that the minister is obviously exploring now as he works through these issues. MINISTERIAL INTERVENTION Page 22 Senator Chris Evans—On coming to government I sought to review all ministerial powers. I have commissioned a report from Elizabeth Proust seeking a fresh set of eyes in addition to departmental advice on the use of ministerial powers. The figures I received when I entered the portfolio indicate that there has been a substantial increase in the use of ministerial powers, and I want to understand why and whether that is appropriate. I also reread the joint committee inquiry report. I think some very useful contributions were made. The report was largely ignored, I understand, by the previous government but I do think there is some valuable work in that. I am giving some consideration to the idea of whether we might involve that committee in some further work on some of those issues. I am meeting with the new chair of the joint committee tomorrow—I think—to discuss those issues. In a general sense I have formed the view that I have too much power. The act is unlike any act I have seen in terms of the power given to the minister to make decisions about individual cases. I am uncomfortable with that not just because of a concern about playing God but also because of the lack of transparency and accountability for those ministerial decisions, the lack in some cases of any appeal rights against those decisions and the fact that what I thought was to be a power that was to be used in rare cases has become very much the norm. There is an industry in appealing to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, I have noticed. I am in the process of changing my email address as a result—not that they will not be processed. But there is a real sense of the appeal to the minister becoming very much part of the process. Rather than being a check on the system it has become institutionalised. Anyway, I have received that report from Elizabeth Proust and I am considering that at the moment. I do want to engage with other members of parliament about this, because it is an issue that the parliament has been keenly aware of over the years. The section 501 powers to which you refer are part of that review I am doing in my mind about how we handle those things. It is the case that those cases are very difficult considerations. Mr Corell has been helping me with these issues in recent times, and he has aged about 10 years, I think, as a result. They are very difficult issues of balancing rights of children, criminal history and time in the country. There is the famous case of Mr Jovicic, who was deported when he had no language skills in his home country. These are really difficult issues and you have got to balance the protection of the community and the rights of individuals and their families. I have no easy solutions to these issues, other than that I am in engaged in how we resolve those and what guidance we provide to the department and what the role of the minister is. I am afraid this is an unsatisfactory answer, in a sense, but I am wrestling with those issues at the moment. Pages 55-56 Senator NETTLE—I will just ask about ministerial interventions, which we were talking about before. When you got the portfolio, minister, how many ministerial interventions did you have there waiting for you to deal with? Senator Chris Evans—Perhaps the department can best answer that. I know I was frightened by the figure. Mr Hughes—I am not sure that we have a precise figure on exactly how many were waiting at the time that the minister took up office, but I think it would be somewhere between one and two thousand. Senator NETTLE—No wonder you are looking favourably at complementary protection. I also wondered where I could get the figures for how many ministerial interventions Minister Andrews dealt with, and how many of those were considered favourably as well, now that his period has ended. Mr Illingworth—There were 1,846 requests resulting in 479 intervention acts. Those are case related figures, so there may be more than one visa granted in each of those instances but they relate to, say, a family unit. Just to clarify, those are under the humanitarian intervention related powers post RRT. Pages 57-58 Senator NETTLE—I just have one more question on ministerial interventions. I am sure it is a difficult question to answer, but how long does each ministerial intervention take? How much work is that for both the department and the minister? Can you give some sort of average? Mr Illingworth—It very much depends on the nature of the intervention request. The time taken to complete the handling of a request can vary quite widely. In some instances, for example if a request is made and there is nothing new substantively raised in the matter, then it is capable of being resolved very quickly. Historically, such requests can be finalised without referral to the minister. If, as is also the case, somebody writes in and commissions or starts the request but says that key information is still to be gathered, then it can take some time to bring the matter to a close. That can happen, for example where people want to advance arguments based on issues relating to torture, trauma and psychological harm or medical grounds where they need to get specialist assessments to provide in support of their request. Senator NETTLE—Are you saying that some ministerial intervention cases are resolved without going to the minister? Mr Illingworth—That has historically been the case. Under arrangements put in place and operated under by previous ministers there were criteria that the department was asked to apply to determine whether cases were referred to the minister. For example, if there was an intervention request following a tribunal decision that a person was not a refugee then in all cases the first request would be referred to the minister. But where there was a subsequent request and there was no new information, then previous ministers have told us that we should finalise those matters without referring them again to the minister. So in that sense, depending on whether it was a first request or a subsequent request, there could be different treatment. Senator NETTLE—Is that a practice that the new government intends to continue with? Senator Chris Evans—As I indicated before, I am in the position of reviewing how we handle ministerial interventions. We have got a range of practices involved—some of which continue the old practice; some of which are to delegate some decisions, and in other cases I have asked for ideas on better ways to handle them. It is a sort of work in progress, as I said earlier. I have now got some independent advice about that and am looking to work out what permanent directions to give the department in each of those categories pending any regulatory or legislative changes I might wish to bring forward. So the answer is that it depends on the category. The way it works in most categories, and correct me if I am wrong, is that the minister sets and gives direction to the department about how they might treat certain matters. Some of those guidelines I have left as they are but have questioned why they are as they are, and with others I have asked for a slightly different handling of them or what I should or should not see. But we are in the process of trying to work through new arrangements and, as I say, part of that will be the decision about the legislative response, part about regulation response and part about administrative practice. I am keen for the department to take more responsibility for decision making, to lessen the role of the minister in the day-to-day operations, and to also make sure that decisions are transparent and where appropriate appealable. Within those general principles, we are working our way through the various classes of appeals. It has been the parliament’s view in the past that the minister retains some rights to intervene. The classic is on the question of a character test, for instance. The range of matters that get determined by the minister seems to me to have grown to a point where the system is not as transparent as it should be, and, I think, where the department may potentially lose confidence in their own decision making processes, because ‘things will get shoved up to the minister, and they will intervene’. There is a range of issues. I have not finalised arrangements for directions on interventions but I am looking to make some changes, and I will make those public. Senator NETTLE—You said there were some where you had given different directions to the department about how they should deal with particular ministerial interventions. Can you outline what those ones are? Senator Chris Evans—I am not sure that I want to do that at this stage—in part because some of them are just transitional. I have asked the department on a couple of occasions to handle things a bit differently while I work out what I want to give as a formal direction. I am not sure that I want to go through that. That is, at the moment, a bit of management between me and the department on a particular sort of case load, where I have not said that I am changing the rules from this to this or the direction from the minister. I do not want to go into the detail of that. It is in flux. I have given you the general principles to my thinking, and I will be providing more direction to the department. They are keen for me to give them that direction; I am keen to get it right. In my long experience of 11 weeks, I have a slightly different attitude to some things now than I did in the first week or two. Sometimes I am more convinced that my first reaction was the right one; at other times I have questioned it. I have been keen not to walk in on day 1 and say, ‘I know better that everybody else and here are the changes’. We are getting close to a formed view. Senator NETTLE—Mr Illingworth, you were explaining about the ones that did not go to the minister with the previous government. Could you provide the percentage of ministerial interventions that did not go to the minister? Mr Illingworth—I would need to take that on notice. That can be provided. Pages 70-71 Senator ELLISON—I have a couple of questions for the minister, but while we are waiting—I think that he will be here relatively soon—I have questions on 1.4.2, status resolution. How many requests for ministerial intervention are currently in the minister’s office? Mr Hughes—We will need to take on notice how many ministerial intervention requests are in the minister’s office. You might recall that Minister Evans said that he was reviewing his approach to ministerial intervention and therefore we would not have the numbers of intervention cases in his office now that we might normally have in a minister’s office, pending him coming to a view on how he intends to handle cases in the future. Senator ELLISON—How many are with the department? Mr Hughes—There would be about 2,400 intervention requests under section 417 in various stages of processing within the department. Senator ELLISON—You are saying requests for ministerial intervention are held up because you are waiting to see what is decided in the minister’s review of his intervention role. Would that 2,400 have intervention requests contained within it because of the review by the minister of the role of the minister? Mr Hughes—I am not quite sure of the specific question. Senator ELLISON—You say there are some requests with the minister’s office, but you cannot say how many, and you take that on notice. There is this number of 2,400 in the department; is it the case that some of them just have not been sent on to the minister’s office and they have stayed in the department because the minister is reviewing his role? Mr Hughes—That is correct. With some of them, processing is occurring in the department, but they have not been sent on as yet. Senator ELLISON—How many section 501 cancellations has the minister considered? Mr Metcalfe—Just before we answer that, I am just a little concerned that we might be jumping around between several different concepts, all which are quite easily able to be confused. So I do not in any way criticise you. If I could just clarify: under 1.4.2, that program covers an initiative known as the community care pilot, which is the resolution of the status of persons who may have been found to have been unlawfully in Australia. Part of that status resolution may be an intervention request, which we have just been talking about, but it could also involve the resolution of their status that they simply have no grounds to remain in Australia and they should go home. This is a particular initiative where we are seeking to move rapidly to assist people, outside of a detention environment, to resolve their immigration status, whether they stay or go. The figures that we have just provided were intervention figures under, I suspect, section 417 of the Migration Act, which is intervention following a refusal decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Page 79 Senator ELLISON—The other question was on ministerial interventions, but I understand, Minister, you have said that you are considering this at the moment. I asked the department how many were in your office; that was taken on notice. But I understand that you are reviewing the role of the minister in relation to this and so, until that is resolved, you will not be dealing with any interventions. Is that right? Senator Chris Evans—No, that is not correct. I can give you a more fulsome answer, probably on notice, if you want. Effectively, I am working through the issues with the department. Mr Correll is dealing with a set of delegated files; he reports to me; we talk about it; we see whether the Ombudsman test works or does not work with some of the other suggestions. If you like, I am assessing rather than rushing to judgement about how we might handle these things. As you are aware, as a minister you get exposed to a range of decision making that you have had no view on from opposition. What we are trying to do is work through the issues—what works for the department, what provides procedural fairness and what ensures people get appropriate appeal rights. As I said to you, my fundamental position is that I do not think the minister should be dealing with as many of the cases as they are. That is not a workload critique. The social security minister does not decide the merit of social security applications. The Attorney-General does not decide who goes to jail, but the immigration minister does. It just seems to me it is a very different set of responsibilities. The parliament has debated this in the past and will debate it again. If you see what has happened over time, Mr Ruddock had a particularly hands-on approach when he became minister and was unhappy with some of the procedures that had been in place under previous ministers, so we have seen a real expansion of the number of cases coming to the minister and being decided by the minister. I am not sure as a matter of public policy that I think that is appropriate. So it is a part of working through those issues. COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION Page 23 Senator NETTLE—I will ask you about two other recommendations from the committee. One goes to a matter you probably touched on a little bit already, in terms of the ministerial interventions. The Senate committee recommended that the system of complementary protection be established, and there have been various discussions and debates and models for that. Is that a recommendation or an area on which the new government has formed a view yet? Senator Chris Evans—It is one of the issues I am considering, and I guess the indication is that I am favourably disposed to looking at how we might advance that agenda. EXCISION Pages 78-79 Senator NETTLE—I want to ask about the excision of islands from the migration zone and whether the new government intended to reverse the excision of islands that was a part of the Pacific solution? Senator Chris Evans—At the election we made it clear that those islands would remain excised. Mr Metcalfe was always keen to explain that they are not excised from the migration zone. But if you are asking, ‘Are we going to reverse the excising of Christmas Island?’ et cetera, the answer is no. That was a very clear election commitment: we would not be reversing that. Mr Metcalfe—Something I am always trying to emphasise to anyone who will listen is that the common mistake is that people talk about those islands being excised from the migration zone. The migration zone is a legal concept set up by the Migration Act. Certain things have to happen or not happen within that zone. The effect of excision is not to remove the migration zone. It continues to apply absolutely the same as ever for a person who holds a visa. So if a person arrives at Christmas Island and they are not an Australian and they have a visa, then they have entered the migration zone of Australia. The effect of excision is that if a person arrives without a visa, as an unauthorised arrival, then they are prohibited from making certain applications under the act, particularly for a protection visa, unless the minister exercises a non-compellable, non-delegable power to allow that application to occur. So the effect of excision is not to shrink the migration zone, as some people have said, but rather to mean that only certain things can happen or not happen if a person arrives without a visa. Senator NETTLE—I want to ask the minister about the current Labor Party platform. It says that Labor will continue the excision of Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Ashmore Reef from Australia’s migration zone. I ask, then, about the other islands. I think there are about 4,000 or so islands that are excised. Is there a plan to reverse that excision in relation to the other islands beyond those three mentioned in the Labor platform? Senator Chris Evans—You are right in the sense that we made it clear, as part of the election platform, that we would continue the excision of Christmas Island, the Cocos islands, Ashmore and Cartier Islands. No decision has been taken by government at this stage about the remaining islands. Senator NETTLE—What was the fourth island? Senator Chris Evans—Ashmore and Cartier. VISA PROCESSING ON CHRISTMAS ISLAND Pages 85-87 Senator NETTLE—Thanks. I want to understand how processing on Christmas Island will continue with the new facility. The government is still—and I know you do not like this terminology—excising Christmas Island from migration zone status. That is still the way in which it will operate. Who will do the processing on Christmas Island? Mr Metcalfe—The processing in what regard? Senator NETTLE—Of asylum seeker claims? Mr Metcalfe—Of a person who arrived without authorisation and came to Christmas Island? Senator NETTLE—Yes. Mr Metcalfe—The current intention is that that person would be interviewed, as they currently are, by the department to ascertain whether there were any issues that might possibly raise protection claims. As we have described before, a very low threshold is applied as to whether there is any possible claim that needs to be considered. The further processing, under current arrangements, would then be a matter for the department to consider whether or not there was in fact a refugee claim. Senator NETTLE—How would you work out which people were to stay on Christmas Island and which people were to come to the mainland or go from the mainland to Christmas Island? How will that work? Mr Metcalfe—It is the government’s intention that any processing would occur on Christmas Island, so the issue of whether someone comes to the mainland or not would only arise depending upon the result of that processing if in fact there were ongoing protection obligations required for that person or in other more limited circumstances, such as if there were particular medical or other issues that meant that a person could not be properly cared for on the island. Senator NETTLE—So people could come from Christmas Island to the mainland. I am just trying to compare it to Nauru and find out how the processing is going to be different. So people could come from Christmas Island to the mainland. Senator Chris Evans—The argument used in terms of the Pacific solution was that somehow by leaving people on Nauru, sometimes for long periods of time, the government would be able to find someone else who would take them out once they had been found to be needing our protection. The reality, as I understand it from my briefings from the department and from the experience of the previous government, is that while that had some limited success early on—some of the people off the Tampa who went to Nauru settled in New Zealand, for instance—the vast majority came to Australia. The vast majority of the people who were subject to the Pacific solution ended up living in Australia. But the then government held out this sort of rhetorical position that somehow they were providing strong border security by leaving people on Nauru. The reality is that eventually the government had to bring them to Australia. Quite frankly, it seems to me that people were just left to rot for long periods because the government could not deliver on its promise to send them somewhere else. My advice is that the options for third country resettlement are extremely limited. We are not likely to get takers. The previous government had been unsuccessful in more recent times in finding alternative takers for those persons. So they were either left on Nauru or the government conceded and they came to Australia. The reality is that under this government they will be processed on Christmas Island and their claims assessed. If they are found to be deserving of protection they will be resettled. Senator NETTLE—In Australia? Senator Chris Evans—One might canvass other options, but look at what reality has been under the Pacific solution. Perhaps Mr Metcalfe can brief you on the situation in terms of third country resettlement issues and where we are at with all that. Mr Metcalfe—I am certainly happy to. As the minister referred to earlier, the majority of people found to be refugees as a result of Australian officers interviewing them on Nauru were ultimately resettled in Australia. There were of course some people—largely that group from the Tampa—who were resettled in New Zealand. But following that 2001 resettlement, there was very limited resettlement elsewhere. A number of people went to Scandinavia but the vast majority came to Australia. It is the department’s assessment that resettlement of people in other places is extremely unlikely. That is essentially for the reason that those folks are seen as Australia’s responsibility and Australia is a country with sufficient resources to deal with the issue. Senator NETTLE—But, Minister, you were saying that people would be resettled either in Australia or elsewhere. Senator Chris Evans—I am not closing off the option, but I think the reality of the previous government’s experience was that they were being resettled in Australia. I guess I am leaving the possibility open. If there were suddenly large numbers of people in a very short period of time, you might do something other than close off the possibility. But the political reality in Australia is that when we have found people to be in need of our protection and they have been properly assessed, then they have come to Australia. The previous government maintained a rhetorical position and was quite successful in convincing the Australian public that something else was the case. But all the facts point to the reality that those people, including those from the Tampa, were largely resettled in Australia and the department advised me, as Mr Metcalfe just did, that the prospects for third country resettlement are very slim. I do not want to close the possibility off altogether. It may in a particular circumstance be an option that you might want to think about. But the reality is that we are dealing with unauthorised boat arrivals and the best way to deal with the situation, in my view, is at source: to encourage people not to go down the path of using people smugglers and not to take serious risks to the lives that are involved. Working with our northern neighbours is the key to that. I think that the previous government had some success in its later years in those endeavours and it is certainly an endeavour that I have redoubled. That is the most constructive solution and, as part of that, we proved that we are serious about these issues and look to resettle people as part of our normal programs. The bottom line is that people will now be processed on Christmas Island. Senator NETTLE—Would detainees on Christmas Island automatically have access to an IAAAS lawyer? Senator Chris Evans—What I would say at the moment is that no decision has been taken on that. Currently, the existing regime is in place. I have been discussing options with the department, and that will be a decision for government. The situation is that the existing process is in place. I have had a number of people raise with me issues about representation, about third parties, and about whether people ought to be able to offer advice on people’s rights. Those issues I am considering. Senator NETTLE—Would asylum seekers on Christmas Island have access to judicial or other review of their cases? Mr Metcalfe—In legal terms, Christmas Island is part of Australia, regardless of whether it is excised, in terms of the status of a person when they arrive here. You are probably aware of section 75(v) of the Constitution that indicates that the decision of a Commonwealth officer is subject to writs such as mandamus. So the answer is that if there is decision-making by Commonwealth officers in Australia then it is a matter that could be the subject of litigation. Senator NETTLE—That Commonwealth decision making would be on the basis of the normal procedures followed, were they to be processed here in Australia? Mr Metcalfe—That is assuming that the decisions in relation to a person’s entry and/or stay are taken by Commonwealth officials. Senator NETTLE—I thought that was what you said before. I was asking about who would do the processing on Christmas Island. You were saying the department. Mr Metcalfe—That is right. As you know, Senator, I am just being very careful with my words. If in fact that continues to be the case, then those decision or actions would be the subject of potential action in the Australian courts. Senator NETTLE—The procedure followed for processing would be as per Australia rather than like a UNHCR stand or anything we are talking about? Mr Metcalfe—We certainly regard Australian standards of decision making and refugee matters as being, if not world’s best practice, close to world’s best practice and I think UNHCR would say the same. Certainly the quality of the training and the information available to decision makers, both at the primary and review levels, is something that is taken very seriously. It is our expectation that decision making would be quality decision making, and that is something that I think we have seen demonstrated in recent times. Senator NETTLE—I am trying to compare it to Nauru, so not the Australia process, rather than— Mr Metcalfe—You specifically mentioned the standard of decision making. The actual process that might be applicable is one of the issues that the minister is currently considering. OFFSHORE PROCESSING Pages 96-98 Senator NETTLE—What is the current status of the detention centre on Nauru? Mr Correll—The current status of Nauru is that, effectively, it has ceased operations. There are no people in the offshore processing centre. Officials from the department visited Nauru between 4 and 8 February with our colleagues from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for discussions concerning completing the wind-up arrangements with the processing centre. It is effectively no longer operating. Senator NETTLE—Are there any staff remaining there? Mr Lamond—Yes, there are staff remaining at the facility. We have had conversations with IOM. They are gearing up for the formal closure of the centre. There are some residual services. IOM will be offering their local staff severance packages. In relation to the employment structure, IOM have five international staff, had employed 21 locals and two local contractors, making a total of 28. Overall, 90 people were employed as caterers, basically 51 local staff. The AFP had staff located there but on a rotational basis. Those police officers will return to Australia, where they will be absorbed into the general policing function. DIAC had staff on a rotating basis on the island but no locally engaged employees. So we are gearing down, and the centre will be closed in accordance with government’s and the minister’s wishes by the end of March. Senator NETTLE—Thanks. And that is not mothballed; that is closed—is that correct? Mr Lamond—There are a set of negotiations with the Nauruan government about the remediation of the site—which is a DIAC requirement. Our colleagues in DFAT are having other conversations. The centre is empty and locked. Mr Correll—It is not mothballed; it is closed. Senator NETTLE—I can ask DFAT about ongoing negotiations. So the payments to Nauru that were associated with the centre would also cease? Is that a question for you or is there somebody else I should ask? Mr Cassey—There were no direct payments to the government of Nauru for the operations of the centre. There is an MOU—which you have already indicated you could discuss with DFAT—for ongoing aid and assistance to Nauru, and that does provide for financial support from Australia to Nauru for its reform process and for assistance. Senator NETTLE—All right. I will ask DFAT that. What have been the total number of people that have gone through Nauru and Manus Island centres? Mr Cassey—The total caseload was 1,637 people arriving between 2001 and 2007 on Nauru and Manus Island. Senator NETTLE—Can you give a total cost? Mr Cassey—The cost of the program was $289 million, between September 2001 and 30 June 2007. Senator Chris Evans—Senator Nettle, I can tell you that, on the basis of my calculations of the number of people held and the nights they were there, taxpayers paid about $2,500 a week to detain each of those held offshore. Senator NETTLE—You would expect a pretty nice hotel room, wouldn’t you, for $2,500 a week? Senator Chris Evans—No-one could claim it was a cheap option. Those are my figures by calculating the number of days we had people detained. It seems it is in the order of $2,500 a week to detain each of those held offshore and they were there for an average of about a year. Senator NETTLE—There used to be a table that we got as part of questions on notice—I think Senator Ludwig used to ask for it—about the cost of processing detainees at the different detention centres. Is it possible to get an update of that table? I am happy to have that on notice. Mr Correll—Yes, it would be. We would take that on notice. We do not have that immediately to hand. Senator TROOD—Mr Correll, you say that the centre is closed, and in accordance with the government’s decision the staff that are Australian based will be back in Australia by the end of March. You say ‘closed’, but do you mean it will also be dismantled? Mr Correll—The vast majority of the assets that exist at the offshore processing centre—most of which I understand, and my colleagues will correct me if I am wrong, are owned by IOM—will be provided to the Nauruan government, effectively handed over. At the present stage a process of discussion is occurring with members of the Nauruan government. A joint working group has been established to work through the whole management of the handover of assets and the use of residual facilities that might exist there. Those processes are underway at the present stage. It is effectively closed for the purpose of operating as an offshore processing centre. At the present stage, it is being kept under secure watch by IOM whilst the process of negotiating how those assets will be handed over is finalised with the Nauruan government. Senator TROOD—I understand you are saying there is a process of negotiation—is that a matter for your department, or are you saying that it is a matter that is essentially in the hands of DFAT under the MOU? I realise there is an MOU. In fact, I have realised there has been an MOU for quite a long period of time, Mr Metcalfe, but I have never seen it, of course—regrettably. I do not know the contents of that, but I am interested to know the extent to which the department of immigration is involved in these matters. Mr Correll—The overall lead role in relation to ongoing aspects of support for Nauru is with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. However, there are direct issues associated with the offshore processing centre and its assets which are clearly this department’s responsibility. We are working closely with DFAT in the discussions with the Nauruan government and officials for the resolution of those resources and assets associated with the processing centre. Subsequently, broader issues in relation to support for Nauru would be handled through DFAT. Senator TROOD—Is it intended, or hoped, that these matters be concluded by the end of March as well, or is that a matter that is likely to take somewhat longer? Mr Correll—I would expect that the issues associated with the offshore processing centre—the issues that this portfolio has primary responsibility for—will be resolved by the end of March. Broader issues may take longer. Senator TROOD—I see. And these are matters that we might pursue, perhaps, with DFAT later in the week—you can feel comfortable with that, I imagine, Mr Correll? Senator Chris Evans—I think Mr Correll has indicated we are very aware of our responsibilities to Nauru. We are very keen to work closely with Foreign Affairs to reach a proper settlement that recognises the efforts they made on behalf of Australia and to recognise also the impact this will have on Nauru economy. So there is no lack of understanding of the situation it places them in. We are very keen, as a government, to negotiate outcomes that support them as we remove ourselves from that particular activity on Nauru. Senator TROOD—Is this likely to involve some payments of some kind to the Nauruan government— either a one-off payment or over a period of time—beyond the aid package that exists? Mr Correll—Beyond the issue of the closure of the offshore processing centre, I think those matters are really better addressed to the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. Senator Chris Evans—They have got the lead on that. Senator TROOD—I understand that. Given that you are before the committee at the moment, I am interested to know whether or not the department may have any continuing obligations in relation to this settlement or the resolution of this matter. Mr Metcalfe—I think the answer is no. Essentially, we see our role as ensuring the timely and orderly closure of the facility, which has now occurred, and the issues that Mr Correll and Mr Cassey have discussed in relation to the assets and their disposal. The longer term issues are matters which the department of foreign affairs is handling and of course we are working very closely with them to ensure there is a coordinated Australian approach on this issue. I should take this opportunity on behalf of the department to say that this closes a chapter in the department’s work over the last seven years, and it is an opportunity for me on the record to thank the government and the people of Nauru for working with us in implementing the policies of the previous government. We are very properly implementing the policy of the new government in the closure of the centre, but that does not mean that the assistance and support provided by many Nauru citizens and government leaders to those efforts over the last few years has not been very much appreciated by the department. Senator TROOD—I endorse those remarks, Mr Metcalfe. I think that is an entirely appropriate set of observations to make about the matter. I am interested to know whether or not the department of immigration might have any financial obligation, beyond the tying up of the centre, in relation to longer term reparations perhaps, or something of that kind that might be a drain on its finances. Senator Chris Evans—I think the answer to that it is no. It certainly has not been raised with me at all. The negotiations have been carried by the department of foreign affairs as the lead agency and settlement of any issues beyond the management of our immigration assets will be a whole-of-government response. I do not anticipate that, whatever settlement is reached—and I do not want to prejudge that, I have got no idea of the detail—it will be an ongoing budget item for the department of immigration. I would be very surprised if it is. Mr Metcalfe—Just supplementing what the minister said, we would expect to continue a professional working relationship with the Nauruan government on immigration and border management issues. We have an active membership of the Pacific Immigration Directors’ Conference and that is an area where we would seek to continue to work with our colleagues in that respect. So we will continue to have a professional working relationship. In relation to the centre, that is closed and, after the final arrangements in relation to the disposal of facilities have been made in the forthcoming period, we would see that as the end of our involvement with the issue. Senator TROOD—Thank you. Senator ELLISON—Did the government advise the Nauruan government of its decision to close the processing centre prior to publicly announcing that on 17 December last year? Senator Chris Evans—I will take that on notice if you do not mind, because I do not have in front of me the exact dates of communications et cetera. The Nauruan government made it clear they understood that it was the policy of the incoming Labor government and that they had been advised of that, but as to the formal government-to-government correspondence or interaction it is probably best asked of Foreign Affairs. But I will take it on notice and get you an answer. US REFUGEE SWAP Pages 61-62 Senator ELLISON—We will reserve that for the minister when he returns. There was an agreement with the United States, a mutual assistance agreement. It is simply, I think, an informal agreement that was finalised by an exchange of letters. Is that still in existence? Mr Metcalfe—It is still in existence in that the exchange of letters has not been varied or terminated, Senator. It has not been actioned or activated and it is not my expectation that it would be. One reason for that is that it essentially assumed that there would be a cohort of persons that Australia would seek to resettle, those persons being in an offshore processing centre, in other words, Nauru or Manus. Given that there are no persons in those centres and those centres are being shut down, the necessary precondition for that agreement is no longer in place. Senator ELLISON—That would close down the option for resettlement in a third country? Mr Metcalfe—That is right. No-one was ever resettled under that option. But effectively the potential case load no longer exists from our perspective. Senator ELLISON—Are there any reviews proposed in relation to protection visas onshore? Mr Metcalfe—The minister spoke early about the issue of temporary protection visas. Apart from that, there is nothing that I am aware of that is under way or proposed. Senator TROOD—Following up on that, in relation to this United States arrangement with the exchange of letters, do the letters contain a provision for the termination of the arrangement or do they not? Mr Metcalfe—I would have to check. My recollection is that they did not. But the usual expectation is that if either side wished to formally withdraw then they would give a period of notice. That is the usual protocol. But effectively there has been a change in circumstances and our colleagues in the United States are aware of that change in circumstances in Australia. Senator TROOD—I understand that point. Was the arrangement a time-bound arrangement? Mr Metcalfe—My recollection—and I will correct this on notice if I am wrong—is that the exchange of letters indicated that the arrangement would be reviewed after a period of two years. Senator TROOD—When does that period expire? Mr Metcalfe—The letters were agreed in April last year, so that is another 12 months or so. Senator TROOD—2009. Pages 76-77 Senator NETTLE—I have a couple more for the minister, if that is all right. I will go back over some areas that we talked about before. Senator Ellison was asking some questions about what I would describe in a colloquial way as the US refugee swap to do with Guantanamo Bay, the Cubans and the Haitians. We were going through the letters and Mr Metcalfe was saying that he did not think that was continuing because that caseload did not exist. But I wanted to ask you, as the minister, what your view about that continuing arrangement is? Senator Chris Evans—I will take a couple of deep breaths so that I can be diplomatic, Senator Nettle. I am advised that it is defunct. If it was not, I would have made sure that it was. It will not be pursued. RRT AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION TRAINING Pages 7-9 Senator NETTLE—I want to raise an issue we have talked about before and it concerns the training for members of the tribunal on issues relating to sexual orientation. Could you give me an update? Mr O’Brien—Although this is my first attendance before this committee, I was aware that this issue was raised before the committee last time. The position was that the former principal member had undertaken to arrange for sexuality awareness training for members of the tribunals. Perhaps I should give a little background. This issue arises principally in relation to the definition of a refugee as set out in the convention. Of course, one of the convention grounds upon which a well-based fear of persecution can arise is membership of a particular social group. In recent times claims have been made that homosexual men or homosexual women in a particular country come within that category of a particular social group. After the appearance before this committee last time, we were approached by the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby for them to provide some training for us. That was on offer which we gladly accepted but I have to say, unfortunately, nothing has eventuated out of that since they first approached us. We have been speaking to them off and on, and we have had promises of something coming, but nothing has happened. So we decided to look after the matter ourselves, in a sense. We have already conducted in Sydney some focus group discussions on sexuality awareness training. Those focus group discussions have been facilitated by a member of the tribunal. They are to be repeated, I think, this week in Melbourne amongst the Melbourne members. We have also separately engaged two academics from Melbourne university, whose names just escape me at the moment, to provide some training to us. That training will be conducted in Melbourne initially but, depending how it goes with the Melbourne members, we intend to roll it out in Sydney. That is about the position at the moment. Senator NETTLE—Thank you. That is pleasing to hear. Could you get the names of the two Melbourne academics who will conduct the training for you? Mr O’Brien—Yes. In fact, Mrs Urquhart might have those names to hand. Mrs Urquhart—Kristen Walker and Jamie Gardiner are the two Melbourne academics who have been approached to address the tribunal in a panel situation. Senator NETTLE—That is what I was interested in. Thank you very much for the update. Senator BARNETT—Can you provide the credentials of Kristen Walker and Jamie Gardiner, please? Mrs Urquhart—I do not have their CVs or biographies here. If I could take that question on notice and undertake to supply them to you, I will do so. Senator BARNETT—Thank you. What is the cost of the training? Mr O’Brien—At the moment, the in-house focus group trainings have cost us nothing apart from members’ time because we have been conducting those in-house. I am not aware of the cost of the external academics. It would not be very much, Senator. Senator BARNETT—Can you take that on notice? Mr O’Brien—Yes, we can provide an answer to you on that. Senator BARNETT—Can you describe the training and the content of the training? Mr O’Brien—Mrs Urquhart can give some outline of the training. Mrs Urquhart—The focus groups, one of which has already taken place in Sydney and one of which is to be conducted in Melbourne tomorrow, have been put together by one of the members. There have been approaches to the question of particular social groups raising the whole issue of homosexuality and protection visa claims due to homosexuality. There are approaches to the issue of credibility, how you would go about identifying homosexuality in relation to a claim of homosexuality, reasonable questions and lines of inquiry that you would put to an applicant in such cases, the fine line between pursuing legitimate avenues of inquiry and giving an appearance of expectations and consideration of witness evidence—issues which are most challenging in relation to this area—the use of country information to support what is being said and case law in the most recent cases in which the issue has arisen. These are the sorts of things that are being covered in the focus groups. Senator BARNETT—What is the issue of case law? Explain that. Mrs Urquhart—We have had some useful cases determined recently. We have circulated them for discussion. Senator BARNETT—Can you provide an example or take that on notice? I am not sure— Mrs Urquhart—Yes, I will take it on notice to supply you with an example of what I am talking about. Mr O’Brien—The other aspect of case law is that the particular social group and the question of whether homosexual claims fall within that category has been the subject of some consideration by the High Court, and there is a relevant case from the High Court. Mr Lynch—We will provide the bio data on Professor Kristen Walker. She is at the University of Melbourne and she is the author of recent articles in the International Journal of Refugee Law entitled, ‘Sexuality and refugee status in Australia.’ Senator BARNETT—You will provide the details on notice? Mr Lynch—We will indeed. Senator NETTLE—I have a follow-on question. When you were describing the aspects of the training you talked about the use of country information in support. Can you expand a little bit more on that, please? Mrs Urquhart—Yes. The tribunals have a country research section. Members can have certain issues researched for them there as part of their preparation for a case or for a hearing. There are certain countries where homosexuals are persecuted. There is quite a lot of information available about that through the country research system. Ensuring that you make best use of the country information that is available and having the research done or doing it yourself is one of the aspects to consider in the total question. CHAIR—We do not appear to have any more questions for you. Thank you to the MRT and RRT for your appearance here today. [9.39 am] REVIEW Page 80 Senator ELLISON—You might have mentioned this to Senator Nettle, but I was out of the room for part of that evidence. The platform stated: 160. Labor will review the current asylum seekers’ appeal mechanism to ensure that its decision making and operation is both cost efficient, fair and consistent. Is that review underway? Senator Chris Evans—No, I have not initiated any action on that yet. I think I told you that I am working my way through the legacy issues at the moment, and a whole range of other issues. That is not one that I have yet initiated work on. As I say, my concentration has been on many of the legacy issues like Haneef, the Pacific solution, Rau, section 457 visas and a whole range of other issues. We will work our way through the other issues. I think even you would concede that in 11 weeks we have done a fair bit in the portfolio, but there is a lot more work to do. I would also like to make the point again that the platform gives general guidance. The election commitments are a different set of commitments and they are being implemented as a priority by this government in all portfolio areas. Senator ELLISON—The Refugee Review Tribunal is another area that was covered in the national platform. When do you intend to have a look at that? Senator Chris Evans—I think I answered this question before also. As I say, I have not yet initiated work on that. I think the previous government made a whole series of appointments just before they left office in that regard, but I have not yet turned my mind to how we implement that part of the Labor platform. 90 DAY PROCESSING Pages 87-88 Senator NETTLE—In relation to the 90-day limit in terms of processing, I notice from the latest situation report there are quite a few—243, I think—who have been there longer than 90 days, including 73 who have been held longer than two years. How is the 90-day limit going? Mr Metcalfe—This is in relation to protection visa processing? Senator NETTLE—Yes. Mr Metcalfe—Madam Chair, we are in one of those situations where this question is actually in outcome 1.2, but I think Senator Nettle is approaching it from the detention angle, which is 1.5. We do have the officers available to answer. Senator NETTLE—Thank you. Mr Illingworth—As at June 2007, which was the latest tabled 90-day report, there were 503 cases finalised outside the 90-day time frame in the four months preceding the end of June 2007 and there were 372 cases over 90 days on hand. The processing of the department has shown, since the inception of the 90-day processing time frame, a dramatic drop both in the time taken to finalise applications and in the percentage of applications that are finalised outside the 90-day time frame. WORK RIGHTS Page 22 Senator NETTLE—You mentioned the various inquiries that this committee and other committees have been involved in. I would like to ask you about three recommendations from when this committee did an inquiry into the Migration Act. One of them related to work rights for people on bridging visa E. The committee recommended that all holders of bridging visa class E should be given work rights. Does the government have a response to that recommendation? Senator Chris Evans—That is one of the issues that is under active consideration at the moment. That is one of the things I wanted to be briefed on. I have sought advice from the department and I have given them some feedback, and we are getting more advice. I am not trying to not answer your question, but I have not made a decision. It is one of the live issues. As part of a new government, we are basically looking at all those issues that have been raised in the public debate and by committees. That is one we are focusing on. There are a lot to focus on. There are a lot of legacy issues. That clearly is one, and we are doing work on that. We will come to a position. I think that might be months away rather than days, but it is an issue I am focused on. 45 DAY RULE Page 23 Senator NETTLE—The other recommendation I want to ask you about was to do with the 45-day rule and the denial of work rights for people who do not make an application within that 45 days. The committee recommendation—I think it is Labor policy as well—was about overturning that 45-day rule. I wonder how that one is going. Senator Chris Evans—All I can say about that is that I realise how damn complex it is and how difficult it is going to be to resolve. I have a clear appreciation of the difficulty of it and I am open to solutions. But again that is one of the issues I have asked for advice on and it is on the agenda. I think there is a real potential in that area to have unintended consequences. It is on the agenda as well, but no decisions have been taken. Pages 80-81 Ellison: Has work commenced in relation to abolishing that 45-day rule for bridging visas? Senator Chris Evans—I think you would have been here earlier when Senator Nettle asked me a similar question. I indicated to her that I had sought advice from the department. They have been doing a lot of work on this in recent times, as I understand it. They have provided me with a brief and that has educated me to the fact of how complex this is and how complex any solutions are. So I guess the answer is that it is under active consideration but no decision has been taken. TEMPORARY PROTECTION VISAS Pages 54-55 Senator NETTLE—I wanted to ask about temporary protection visas, it being Labor’s policy to abolish temporary protection visas. I thought I would ask how that was going. Senator Chris Evans—I have never had so much interest in a Labor Party policy document. It has been so widely read and examined. I always pay deep respect to the party platform, but I do not seem to read it quite as often or as deeply as some others. Both Senator Crossin, the Chair, and I are deeply embarrassed by the familiarity of others with the document. CHAIR—You mean you do not keep it by your bedside each night, Senator Evans? Senator Chris Evans—No. It is in my office. I read a couple of potboilers over Christmas, rather than that. I am certainly worried about Senator Ellison’s reading habits. We have got to put him onto a couple of good authors. Seriously, this is a very important part of Labor’s platform. The government has not taken any decisions as yet. We think that the temporary protection visa system did not provide the answer to the problem the government said it was addressing. It is interesting that of the 11,086 TPVs and temporary humanitarian visas granted, 9,525 have already been granted permanent visas to stay in Australia. So, the vast bulk of people who were put on the temporary protection visas are actually now on permanent protection visas. It did not act as a deterrent. In fact, the number of boat arrivals went up following the introduction of the TPV. We are committed to ending the TPV. I have asked the department for advice on the best way forward, and have—quite frankly—hit a few issues that I am having to work on to resolve. I am anxious to deliver on that commitment as soon as possible. I have not yet made a decision, but that will be done as soon as possible. It is very much a focus. I am taking advice on it and working through the issues. It is my intention to deliver on all our election promises. I think we have already shown we are very focused on doing that. I am not quite ready to announce how we will handle the TPVs, but there is no change in policy. It is our intention to abolish them. Senator NETTLE—Can you give me a ballpark time frame? Senator Chris Evans—As I said earlier, one of the frustrations of being a minister is that you think you can just get things done. It does not work like that, as Senator Ellison will probably attest. I cannot—other than to say it is a priority, and I want to do it as soon as possible. Senator NETTLE—Okay. Thank you. Senator TROOD—Does that mean, Minister, that there will be no more temporary protection visas issued? Senator Chris Evans—That is one of the issues, Senator Trood, that I am looking at. You cannot resolve one problem without resolving the others, if you like. There is a series of related problems. What you replace it with is part of the issue. I do not want to go into the details of what the government is considering. At the moment, the system remains as is, and I am hopeful that I can announce a change of policy soon. Senator TROOD—So, it is conceivable that you might issue some further visas if the circumstances arose where that was necessary. Senator Chris Evans—Yes. A change would require a change in regulations. Effectively, you cannot fiddle with one part of the system without fiddling with it all—to put it inelegantly. It is not as straightforward as it might sound. To answer your question, I guess it is possible. We need to change the regulations and, in doing so, we need to change the whole suite, not just one. Senator TROOD—What does that mean for the people who are on temporary protection visas? Senator Chris Evans—They are currently being processed in the same way. They come up for review as their time period rolls over. The evidence is that the vast majority of them, who have remained in the country after seeking temporary protection, move on to permanent visas. That will continue until we change the system. Senator TROOD—So you will deal with these as their time limits expire in relation to these temporary arrangements. You are not proposing to shift everybody who is currently on a temporary protection visa onto some other form of visa. Is that correct? Senator Chris Evans—I think we are at cross-purposes. You asked what is happening currently. The system that existed at the time of the election is still in place so those people are able to get their position reviewed after thirty months. That is still continuing. We have not put a stop to that. As to what policy position we take for those who are already in the system, that is a decision for government and will be part of the announcement. At the moment, with the continuation of the existing system, those people can move off temporary protection visas onto permanent visas by virtue of the existing rules. Senator TROOD—No, I actually understood you to say that. What I was concerned about were those people who were not seeking review, or who were on a temporary protection visa who might be likely to remain there for some time. Are you planning to automatically shift them to some other kind of visa arrangement? Senator Chris Evans—No decision has been taken in relation to those matters, as I say, and when I make an announcement it will deal with the gamut of issues because of the regulation changes required et cetera. The simple answer is no policy decision has been made by the government but the commitment to the platform position remains rock solid. It is my intention to deliver on that as soon as possible. Pages 59-60 Senator ELLISON—You said earlier that since the introduction of the TPV boat arrivals have gone up. As I understand it, the temporary protection visas came in around 1999—I am open to correction on that. The chart I have shows boat arrivals decreasing since then. Can you clarify that? Senator Chris Evans—The point I am making is that the peak arrival period was following that—around the 2001-2002 period. The figures have decreased now but after the introduction of the TPV we had the peak period around 2000 and 2001, in fact, immediately following that period. From December 2000 until November 2001 we had 6˝ thousand boat arrivals, which is over double the num