What are the new reforms?

Over the past couple of days i have got alot of calls from friends who have said "you must be excited about the new refgee policy reforms!". The truth is, I'm not really! There have been some small changes - granted - but they are really very minor when you unpack the frilly words and get to the bottom of the meaning. I'll put below the press release from the Prime Minister's office so that you can read it for yourself. Soon, when i get around to it, I'll go through the policy and outline some of the technicalities and problems and reasons why it's really not that cool after all...

Happy reading! (It's long- sorry about that!)


The Australian Government has decided on a number of changes to both the law and the handling of matters relating to people in immigration detention.

The broad framework of the Government’s approach is unaltered. It is essential that we continue to have an orderly and well managed migration and visa system.

There can however be significant improvements which will mean that current policy is administered with greater flexibility, fairness and, above all, in a more timely manner.

The Minister for Immigration has already announced changes in relation to the issuing of removal pending visas.

The Migration Act will be amended to provide an additional non-compellable power for the Minister to specify alternative arrangements for a person’s detention and conditions to apply to that person.

The purpose of this change is to enable the detention of families with children to take place in the community where conditions would be set to meet their individual circumstances.

The Migration Act will also be amended to provide an additional non-compellable power for the Minister to grant a visa to a person in detention.

In future all primary protection visa decisions taken by the Department of Immigration will need to occur within three months of application. Likewise, reviews by the Refugee Review Tribunal must occur within three months of application.

Cases where these time limits are not met will be the subject of periodic reports to Parliament.

Where a person has been in detention for two years or more there will automatically be a requirement that every six months a report on that person must be furnished by the Department to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will assess that report, providing his assessment to the Minister who must then table the assessment in Parliament.

The Ombudsman may in his assessment recommend the release of a person, the grant of a permanent visa, that the person remain in detention or indeed any other recommendation he thinks fit.

No recommendation of the Ombudsman will in any way bind the Minister.

The Department will complete all primary assessments of applications for permanent protection visas from the existing case load of temporary protection visa holders by 31st October 2005. To expedite this process decisions will be taken on the application papers although the option of an interview will be available if there were a disposition to reject an application for a permanent visa.

Implementation of these changes to the Immigration Act and related procedures will be overseen by an Inter-departmental Committee to be chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet

The Member for Kooyong Mr Petro Georgiou MP has informed me that he will be withdrawing the two private members’ bills of which he has given notice.


Detail of Immigration Changes
Children and families

The Australian Government will amend the Migration Act 1958 to provide an additional non-compellable power for the Minister, acting personally, allowing her to specify alternative arrangements for a person's detention and impose conditions to apply to that person. The Act would be amended to state that ‘the Parliament affirms as a principle that a minor child shall only be detained as a measure of last resort’.

The objective of these amendments is to ensure that families with children in detention will be placed in the community, under community detention arrangements, with conditions set to meet their individual circumstances.

The Second Reading Speech to the Bill will make it clear that the overall intention of the package of amendments will be to ensure that the best interests of minor children are taken into account and that any alternatives to detention of children are considered in administering the relevant provisions.

The new arrangements will allow all families with children who are currently in detention centres and Residential Housing Projects to be placed in the community under community detention arrangements. Where their primary processing has been completed and removal arrangements are not underway, community detention arrangements will be made for these families as soon as possible, following decision by the Minister. It may take 4-6 weeks to make suitable arrangements for the families currently in detention.

In future where families come into detention, which occurs primarily as a result of compliance action, they would be placed in Residential Housing Projects closest to the city of their prior residence (where available) while assessment takes place about their prospect for removal. The Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) advises that this primary assessment will take no longer than 3-4 weeks. During this time the Minister would be able to make a determination for their alternate detention in the community.

It is the Government’s intention that where primary assessment is being undertaken, removal is imminent or conditions of community detention have been breached, families (including fathers) would be housed in Residential Housing Projects in the capital city of their prior residence (where available) rather than detention centres.

This intention will be reflected in the Second Reading Speech and the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.

Amendments to DIMIA instructions to staff regarding families in detention will be made to refer to the Second Reading Speech for the Bill. Guidelines will also be prepared for those preparing documents for the exercise of the Minister’s discretion – these will also make the intention clear. Both the DIMIA instructions and guidelines are public documents.
Certain long term detainees

The Government announced on 16 June 2005 that it has amended the Removal Pending Bridging Visa (RPBV) regulations to focus eligibility on persons whose applications have been refused at both the primary and review stages and where their removal is not practicable at the time (or within a short timeframe). Having litigation on foot will not be a bar to eligibility, unless the litigation is the only reason that removal cannot be achieved.

The Government will also amend the Migration Act to make the Minister’s invitation to apply for an RPBV a non-compellable power.

General power for the Minister to grant a visa to a person in detention

The Government will amend the Migration Act to provide an additional non-compellable power for the Minister, acting personally, to grant a visa to a person in detention.

Protection visa processing time limits

The Government will amend the Migration Act to include processing time limits in the Act for:

Primary Protection Visa decision making by DIMIA a within a three month period from the date of application; and

Review by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) within a three month period from the date of application for review.
DIMIA will be required to report a failure to meet the time limits to the Minister who will be required to regularly table such reports in parliament (in a manner consistent with the privacy of individual applicants).

It is noted that elements of processing time are not within DIMIA’s or the RRT’s control (for example security checking processes, provision of information from the applicant and the timeliness of information from other Governments), and that information will need to be addressed in any reports that are provided to the Minister.

Ombudsman oversight

The Commonwealth Ombudsman will be given a specific role reviewing the cases of persons who have been in detention for more than two years. This role would be consistent with the Ombudsman’s existing powers but would be formalised in legislation to ensure regular reporting by DIMIA and tabling of assessments in Parliament:

DIMIA would be required to report every six months to the Commonwealth Ombudsman on the status and case management of any person in immigration detention for two years or longer.

The Ombudsman could conduct appropriate inquiries on any issues arising from the report, including asking DIMIA to furnish further information, answer questions (including under oath) and produce documents. The Ombudsman also has the power to enter subject agencies’ premises.

The Ombudsman would provide an assessment of that report and any recommendations regarding detainee cases to the Minister for Immigration.

The Ombudsman will be able to make recommendations including, but not limited to, recommending continued detention, release into the community or the granting of permanent residence.

The Minister for Immigration would be required to table a copy of the assessment and any recommendations from the Ombudsman in Parliament. The copy to be tabled would take into account the need to protect the privacy of individual detainees.

No recommendation by the Ombudsman will in any way bind the Minister.

The process for reporting on and assessing cases would be established in such a way as to ensure it did not give rise to any additional legal rights including rights of appeal.
Rapid processing of outstanding Permanent Protection Visa applications from TPV holders

Noting that approximately two-thirds of the current TPV caseload has already been processed at primary stage by DIMIA, except for finalisation of ASIO checks: In relation to the remainder of applications at primary and review stage:

Decision making will proceed on the basis of written material with processing staff making decisions on the basis of the papers/claims made by applicants. In cases where an assessment was made on the papers that refusal was assessed as likely, an interview would be offered to the applicant to allow them an opportunity to answer questions and support their application orally. Cases refused at the primary stage would then be able to proceed to the RRT as per the normal course of events.

DIMIA will work with ASIO to ensure timely resolution of security checks. At the moment the completion of security checks is a significant factor in finalising decisions and issuing visas to a significant group of cases already processed by DIMIA or the RRT. it is noted that there are currently approx 800 cases still awaiting finalisation of security checks and efforts will be made to ensure this occurs as soon as practicable.

DIMIA and the RRT will accord the highest priority to the finalisation of the caseloads, including through the formation of taskforces.
DIMIA will complete all primary assessments of applications for Permanent Protection Visas from the existing caseload of Temporary Protection Visa holders by 31 October 2005.

Overall management of changes - Immigration IDC

The Government will establish a high level Immigration IDC chaired by the Secretary of PM&C to oversee the implementation of all changes discussed above. Other agencies involved will include the DIMIA, the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ASIO and the Department of Family and Community Services.

The Minister for Immigration and the Chairman of the IDC will meet regularly with interested members of the Government to discuss progress on implementation of the changes.



17 June 2005

(Cartoon above courtesy of Mr Bill Leak)

Howard and Georgiou Strike A Deal

The PM has announced major changes to Australia's system of immigration detention.

Families with children will be placed in community housing, rather than in detention centres, and thousands of those on temporary protection visas will be allowed to stay in Australia permanently. (This is so good!)

The primary decision on an asylum seeker's case must be made within three months, and the Refugee Review Tribunal must also finalise decisions within three months.

Long-term detainees who have been held for two years will have their cases referred to the Commonwealth ombudsman for review.

If a person has been detained for two years or more there will be an automatic requirement that every six months a report on their detention must be given to the Ombudsman who will give an assessment to the minister.

The Ombudsman's report to the minister will be a recommendation only.

Mr Howard says he wants a more cases to be dealt with in a timely way.

"Above all in a more timely manner," he said.

"It's fair to say that the more I have delved into this issue the greatest areas of complaint really arise around the issue of time, and therefore quite a number of the announcements I am about to make relate to the issue of the time it takes to deal with matters."

Mr Howard says mandatory detention remains.

"I think they represent a sensible advance on the existing arrangements. They don't undermine the existing policy," he said.

Liberal MP Petro Georgiou has welcomed the deal, saying he will withdraw his two Private Members Bills.

Lobby group, Justice for Refugees, has welcomed the changes.

But its chairman, Don McMaster, says detention cases should be reviewed sooner than after two years.

"I suppose anything is a step in the right direction, but I think two years is a bit too long," he said.

"Certainly after a year would be a much better time span, and using the ombudsman is an improvement."

(Source : ABC News)

Important Policy Seminar

On Friday 17th Petro Georgiou will be outlining his Private Member's Bill to reform mandatory detention at the University of Melbourne. Given the recent revelations of serious problems in both detention centres and the Department of Immigration, it is important that this Bill be fully and openly debated. He will be speaking at a forum organised by A Just Australia, hosted by Corrine Grant from ABC TV The Glasshouse, David Manne, Co-ordinator of theRefugee and Immigration Legal Centre (RILC) and Grant Mitchell from the Asylum Seeker Centre will also be speaking. . The Lecture Theatre is building number 134, next to Gate 3 on Swanston St.

POLICY FORUM – THERE IS A BETTER WAY
Friday June 17 7.00pm - 9.00pm
Melbourne University, Theatre A, Elisabeth Murdoch Building

Are there alternatives to detention? Experts say there is A Better Way.
Come to hear the sensible middle ground of this politically sensitive issue.

MC - Corrine Grant of The Glasshouse (ABC TV)
Speakers include:

Petro Georgiou, MP. He will be outlining the details of his two private members bills, the main points seek to:
* release all children and families assessed by judge not to pose any danger
* Act of Compassion: long-term detainees who have been in
detention for more than a year to be released after individual security assessment by a judge with same entitlements as the new bridging visa
* 90 day limit on detention after which a judge will review any
continued need to detain
* release into community on bridging visa with work rights and
Medicare whilst being processed
* ending temporary protection with all protection visas to be
permanent

David Manne, Co-ordinator of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre
(RILC) who will outline the current legal framework for seeking asylum, and the problems in the new bridging visa offered by the Government which removes people's legal rights.

Grant Mitchell of the Asylum Seeker Centre of Uniting Care's Hotham Mission, which has years of experience working with community-based asylum seekers. Along with the Justice for Asylum Seekers network, they have pioneered policy proposals for the community release of asylum seekers. These proposals have been tested - they have far higher rates of voluntary return of failed asylum seekers and they cost far less to run. These programs could be implemented right now - all that is lacking is the political will. www.thebetterway.info

Go Petro!

This morning we have news that Petro Georgiou is pushing his private members bills into parliament today! He and his cohorts met with Mr Howard last night, and Mr Howard made some significant concessions, but Georgiou was not satisfied so he's going ahead. This is *amazing*. The introduction of of a private member's bill is a sign of mutiny in the party, particularly since Howard has said this is not an issue of conscience. At the same time, Mr Beazley is vocally supportive of the bills, which means that they will at least get a good go in parliament. This is quite amazing. Although, alot of Coalition MPs are still in favour of mandatory detention with some 'softening' around the edges so we'll see how it goes.
If you live in an electorate outside petro georgiou's kooyong (which most of my friends DON'T!) PLEASE write to your MP stating that you support Petro's bills.
This could make a massive difference - it's very exciting.

Come on!

:c)

What's news today

Hi,

Well today is kind of peculiar. I was driving along this morning and got a text message while stopped at traffic lights, telling me to check out the front of the age. i quickly indicated and pulled into a servo, where i made a beeline for the papers, and stood there reading about the new reforms to the detention policy that have been predicted early by the Palmer inquiry. (i did buy the paper, too, for any disgruntled newsagency owners who might be reading...!) They include the introduction of a proper review body with actual power (yippee!!), a bridging visa for long-term detainees (meaning they can be out of detention while their claims are being processed), the closure of the isolation facility at baxter, and other good things. I'm so glad.

Also, today I found out that a guy we've been visiting this year got out of detention on friday. which is SO amazing! i'm so relieved and happy. but he's got a temporary protection visa, which means that unless the TPV is abolished, he will have to relive the badness of his RRT hearings and 're-prove' his refugee status again in three years. hmm. let's abolish TPVs

I'm also gearing up for the trip to baxter. There are a lot of people coming so it'll be really fun on one level, but i know that the 2 days we spend there will be pretty nasty. there will be 5 visit sessions of 2-3 hours each, and i'm just not really looking forward to the fallout from those. by all accounts baxter is an absolute crazy-factory, and we will be the first visitors to some of the people since they got there. and then the saying goodbye and leaving part will be awful too! hehe when one of my friends got moved from Maribyrnong to Baxter, we only had 12 hours notice, and i went to say goodbye to him. at the end of the visit, i gave him a hug and he left, and i cried my eyes out! I'm not good with goodbyes. :c)

That's enough for now.
Catch you soon

What is a Private Members Bill??

(Courtesy of A Just Australia)

A lot of people are wondering what is the process for Petro Georgiou’s Private Member’s Bill? Will it get to a vote? When will it be debated? Could it result in legislative change?

For supporters of A JUST AUSTRALIA and their networks I have attempted to give a description of this complicated process.

Any MP can propose a Private Member’s Bill without approval from the party they are a member of (hence the term private members bill, as they are doing it as a private person not a party member).

The bill goes to the select committee who must approve it for general lawfulness e.g. is it obviously unconstitutional? Once the select committee approves the bill, it is put on the notice paper. The process of going on the notice paper means that the bill is “taken as read[1]” which means on the next sitting day of parliament it gets entered into Hansard (the record of everything that happens in the two chambers of parliament). At this point the private member gets to speak to the bill for 5 minutes, but there is no time put aside for response or debate, and the bill is not voted on.

Approval by the select committee simply means it goes on the notice paper which is the list of bills waiting to be put onto the legislative agenda for debate and vote in the chamber. The government of the day schedules the legislative agenda. Most private members bills languish at this point and never surface again.

There is private business time in the chamber where this bill could be raised and debated. But the member has to negotiate for enough support from other MPs to get a time slot on this limited agenda. And even if they got on, Private Business has a time limit on the debate and vote (generally 1.5 hours). This means that parties can stop a vote on private business by using delaying tactics. Before the vote is taken, everyone who wants to have their say about the issue can register and they get a timed 20 minute slot. By stacking the list of speakers with more people than can speak within the allotted 1.5 hours, the issue cannot be voted upon as not everyone who registered got to have their say, so the issue is deemed to have not been fully and openly debated and considered.

Chances are the member will never get his/her bill another time slot, but even they did, the bill can be ‘talked out’ before a vote every single time it goes up. In this way, the principles of democracy are used as a tool to stop the process of democracy.

Senate Bills – the Senate can lodge bills in the same way, but again it will be talked out before a vote is reached. And even if it passed the Senate, that does not force the House of Reps to debate and vote on the bill as the government schedules senate bills in the same way as private members bills.

Without government support, this bill will never be voted on. This bill is due to be discussed in the coalition party room meeting on Tuesday, 31st May, 2005. It is highly unlikely the government will support this bill for open debate. Had the opposition stated they would not support this bill, the government could allow it to go to a vote to further wedge Labor’s support base, as well as showing it allows for ‘open and democratic’ debate within the party. Since the ALP has indicated it supports the bill, there is no political advantage to the government to allow this bill to be openly debated, therefore they will not let it go further.


What can you do?

We can create a situation where there IS political advantage to taking up the proposals in this Bill. By showing public support for the solutions we can influence our government to adopt them.

We encourage everyone to make their voice heard in support of sensible and humane policy reforms that are immediately achievable.


The Bottom line; Take Care

Take care when speaking with detained asylum seekers. Please do not raise their hopes that this bill will itself result in legislative change. It is a very important step in the process of policy reform, by showing how this situation could be resolved in a humane and sensible way. But in its current form the Bill will probably not result in immediate change.

Please see the latest newsletter from A JUST AUSTRALIA http://www.ajustaustralia.com/whatshappening_newsletter.php?act=newsletter&id=34 for an explanation of the bill proposed by Petro Georgiou and steps you can take to support this proposal.

ACT NOW!
YOU DON’T NEED TO BE AN EXPERT TO HAVE YOUR SAY.


[1] Taken as read simply means the text is forwarded to everyone and it is not actually read out as most bills are so mind-numbingly boring and long it would be considered cruel and unusual treatment to make members sit through an actual reading.


Kate Gauthier
National Coordinator
A Just Australia

Letter To The Editor 1/6/05...

No shame in junking a shameful policy

After a number of years of simmering controversy, it is hardly surprising that the issue of Australia's treatment of asylum seekers is finally coming to a head. The moves of Petro Georgiou and his cohort signal a tacit shift in the opinions of the Australian electorate, and highlight the moral and political unsustainability of the current policy.

It is clear that a large section of the Australian population wishes to see changes made to the system of mandatory indefinite detention, detention of children, access to mental health care in detention, and the reinstatement of judicial review in cases falling under the Migration Act. We also call for a royal commission into immigration detention and the abolition of the temporary protection visa - condemned as inhumane by the Howard Government when it was proposed by Pauline Hanson at the 1998 election.

Mr Howard, were your Government to take a more humane approach to asylum seekers, it would not be seen as sign of weak leadership, but an acknowledgement that the current policy is flawed. There is no shame in putting to bed a policy that has caused immeasurable damage and suffering, closing a reprehensible chapter in our nation's history and moving into a future of compassion, hope and exemplary global citizenship.
Jessie Taylor, Hawthorn