It’s broke and it needs fixing
Introduction:
Australian refugee policy suffers a lack of principle in its basis and formulation. Present policy is reactive, piecemeal and ad hoc without any clear foundation in law or ethics, grounded in public fear and government manipulation[1].
As policy alternatives are examined for processing of asylum-seekers
and protection of refugees it is timely to also review the functions of the
Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) and the
responsibilities and discretionary powers of the Minister. This paper intends to contribute to such a
review process and a discussion about what changes are desirable and possible.
Over recent years DIMIA has developed an ever-growing range of
portfolios and programs. The current
DIMIA Website lists Population Change, Border Protection, Migration Program,
Humanitarian Program, Multicultural Affairs and Indigenous Affairs as principal
areas of responsibility.
The multiple responsibilities of DIMIA have helped to conflate the
issues of population, migration, resettlement, border protection, mandatory
detention, refugees and asylum seekers.
At the same time it has helped to sideline and marginalise Indigenous
affairs and reconciliation.
DIMIA is now inextricably associated with refugee policies and
practices that have divided
The adoption and implementation of alternative policies for processing
asylum seekers and protecting refugees will require a reorganisation of DIMIA
and a reallocation of its functions.
Addressing these functional issues offers an opportunity to promote
alternative policy within a broader context of promoting a vision for good,
accountable and efficient government.
Such proposals may also help shift the grounds of public debate away
from the loaded language of mandatory detention or mandatory processing of
asylum seekers. Proposing an extensive and overdue overhaul of current
departmental responsibilities offers an opportunity to move debate to issues of
government administration, accountability and efficiency – all areas on which
the administration of current policy is vulnerable to public criticism.
By focussing on government administration of different functions it
will be easier to separate public debate on the different issues of border
protection, processing of asylum claims, re-settlement of refugees, migration
policy, multiculturalism, national and regional population policy.
DIMIA has grown in an ad-hoc way over the years. The Human Rights Council focuses on the need
to reform administration of the processing of asylum seekers and the care and
resettlement of refugees. However, any
review and reallocation of DIMIA’s current
responsibilities should build on existing proposals for change in other areas
of DIMIA’s current responsibilities. Since the 2001 election, the need to review
DIMIA responsibilities has taken on added importance with Indigenous Affairs
and Reconciliation being absorbed into the Ministry. This subordination of Indigenous affairs had
little rationale at the time and was opposed by Labor, Democrats and the Greens.
Prior to the 2001 election Labor proposed a number of
changes to the organization of government, including the creation of a new
Ministry of Home Affairs and the creation of a new Coast Guard service. The latter suggestion was designed to free
the Navy from their current deployment intercepting unarmed, overloaded and
often un-seaworthy fishing vessels carrying asylum seekers.
Bringing Customs and Immigration functions under a single
Ministerial portfolio would enable a clearer departmental focus on managing
border protection and processing arrangements at points of entry. The immigration function in this arrangement
would be on processing of non-refugee visas and policing points of entry rather
than migration policy as a whole. Such
an arrangement could enable more cohesive responses to people trafficking, the
smuggling of goods and people and other border integrity issues.
In such an arrangement then a new Department of Community and Multicultural Affairs (CAMA) could become more clearly focused on the needs of all Australians. It would include responsibility for developing population and migration policy as well as administering and promoting multiculturalism and the humanitarian resettlement program (community services and relations).
Responding to Refugees and
Claims for Asylum
Refugee policy, however,
derives from obligations under international law which have been incorporated
into Australian domestic law… Accommodating the refugee determination process
within the immigration portfolio blurs this distinction. Refugee policy comes
to be perceived as a sub-set of immigration policy. The two have distinct legal bases, however,
with divergent consequences[3]…
There are legal, political and policy reasons for
separating
Politically there is a need to separate the issue of
border protection from the harsh treatment of individuals in
The convergence of border control on the one hand and protection obligations on the other gives rise to policies… (is) disproportionately felt by asylum seekers who arrive by boat and claim refugee status on-shore[5].
The current Minister has consistently used phrases such
as queue jumpers and seeking migration outcomes to build and
reinforce public hostility to the minority of asylum seekers who arrive in
Refugees need protection
In its 1998 Report Those who've come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) recommended[6] that processing of asylum seekers and refugee claims belonged more appropriately in the Attorney-General’s Department as these claims flow from Australia’s obligations to domestic and international law rather than discretionary decisions about the size and composition of the migration program.
There is a fundamental
difference between immigration decisions and determination of refugee
status. Immigration is properly a matter
of government policy. Subject to human
rights considerations, including the principle of non-discrimination, each
state is entitled to decide its own approach to immigration…
Determination of refugee
status is however a matter of law, not policy.
Whether or not someone is a refugee depends on whether the person meets
the definition of refugee set out in the Refugee Convention, which is
incorporated in Australian law. This is
not a matter on which the Minister should be able to issue policy directions…
Deciding a refugee
application is not properly an immigration matter at all. Refugee determinations should therefore be
transferred to the Attorney-General’s Department which is better placed to
manage a legal process, which should not be constrained by immigration policy[7].
While international comparisons can be misleading because of
legislative framework, the creation of a separate Protection Act that would cover both resettlement and onshore determination and the creation of a specialist protection agency[8].
Deterrence Distorting the Department
It has become evident to those regularly dealing with DIMIA that the Department’s active promotion of the current punitive approach to those seeking asylum has made DIMIA part of the problem of finding a better way of handling refugees. It has long been notable that each new Minister for Immigration quickly becomes supportive of a “hardline” approach to asylum-seekers whatever their previous political reputation. The current Minister is a case in point, albeit an extreme case.
Processing of asylum-seekers and of refugee issues is currently the preserve of DIMIA from the beginning of the process until the end[9] unless the Courts intervene, as they increasingly are. The lack of interaction with other Government Departments in the refugee determination and processing system has increased DIMIA’s isolation and reduced scrutiny and input from other portfolio areas.
It is also suggested that the political emphasis and priority given to the divisive issues of the mandatory detention regime and border protection have distorted DIMIA’s organizational culture and sense of mission. DIMIA’s own website is now notable for the space it devotes to efforts to rebut community and international criticism of its treatment of refugees.
Passion and polarisation in the community over the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees have tended to make DIMIA officials more defensive. According to anecdotal evidence public servants uncomfortable with implementing the policy have tended to move away from the departmental areas responsible for detention, leaving mainly those ideologically committed and personally invested in the policy approach.
DIMIA conduct in relation to those in its care or to whom it has a duty has come in for increasingly strong criticism from various judicial quarters including from two separate Coronial Inquiries into the deaths of asylum seekers[10].
The 1998 HREOC Report recommended moving responsibility for administration of immigration detention facilities to the federal justice portfolio within the Attorney General’s Department.
Abusing Discretion and Lacking Accountability
The wide powers of discretion open to the Minister and lack of public accountability are open to abuse and perceptions of rorting and favouritism. At the very least the extent of these discretionary powers over vulnerable individuals is inimical to informed and healthy dissent.
Refugee advocates are conscious that they may need to call privately for the Minister’s personal intervention in individual cases and are inevitably conscious that public criticism from them may have adverse impacts on individuals they are seeking to assist – there is an understandable reluctance to bite the hand that holds the keys to freedom and safety.
This problem of accountability is exacerbated by the shortcomings and inadequacies of the current Refugee Review Tribunal. Apart from the Minister’s existing and wide powers of discretion as a last avenue of appeal and his power as the guardian of the children he detains, it is also suggested that the Minister exerts an unhealthy influence over what was meant to be an independent review mechanism.
This influence rests partly in the combination of his powers of appointment to the Tribunal, the short tenure of these appointments, and the fact that single-member panels mean it is possible for the Minister to more easily identify or pressure individuals whose decisions go consistently against the department.
The Refugee Council of Australia has pointed out that the Administrative Review Council addressed these issues specifically in relation to Commonwealth merits review tribunals and noted:
In addition the failure of key selection criteria for members to include legal or human rights expertise raises doubts about the emphasis these issues are to be given in making life and death decisions for asylum-seekers.
The significance of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) has grown with government efforts to exclude independent judicial scrutiny. The recent High Court decision relating to the RRT has highlighted only some of the problems concerning the current processing system. Even before the High Court decision there was substantial criticism of the RRT[11], its decisions and narrow focus on procedural issues, at efforts to undermine its independence and the Minister’s willingness to interfere in its proceedings.
Whatever the reason, it is true to say that there is no longer the view that an appeal to the RRT will automatically guarantee an applicant a fair, thorough and independent examination of the claims presented. Further, this lack of confidence is clearly one of the reasons behind the sizeable increase in rate of appeal from the RRT to the Federal Court in recent years[12].
Detaining Children or Guarding their Interests?
Currently the Immigration Minister is the official guardian of all unaccompanied minors awaiting visa decisions or in detention. The guardianship responsibility is often delegated – sometimes down to the level of those administering the detention camps. This situation has been roundly condemned by a number of organizations including the Refugee Council of Australia and Children out of Detention (Chilout).
There is no way that the
Minister can give due regard to what are inherently contradictory functions.
Nor is it possible that a Minister of the Crown can take an active role in
monitoring the welfare of every child under his guardianship.
This system leads
to many legally questionable practices, such as a DIMIA officer signing the
minor’s application for refugee status, or worse still, the minor signing
him/herself.[13]
It also leaves minors exposed to neglect and abuse in the detention centres as
regular staff rotation means that there cannot be continuity of care.
As things stand at present,
there is no delegation of guardianship to a person who has the best interests of
the child as his/her sole and unambiguous responsibility and who will have
responsibility for the child for as long as he/she remains in
It would be more appropriate if the Guardianship function resided elsewhere and not with the Minister or Department that is responsible for determining status of the asylum claim (or any other visa matter). If the Attorney General’s Department is to administer refugee applications it is suggested that the Guardianship function should lie with the Department of Family and Community Services. This responsibility should in no way override any of the existing State Government child protection regimes, but should include a provision to act as legal guardian to assist in the refugee application process.[15]
Table 1 provides a notional breakdown of how DIMIA’s current responsibilities and functions might be
redistributed.
Department |
Functions |
Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation (new) |
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues and
Reconciliation process |
Attorney General |
Processing Refugee and Asylum Seeker Applications |
Border Control, Immigration and Customs[16] (new) |
Passport control, ports, processing and issuing of
non-refugee visas (border control) |
Department of Community and Multicultural Affairs (new) |
Population and Migration policy, Multicultural affairs and
humanitarian resettlement services |
Family and Community Services |
Some refugee and migrant resettlement services |
Department of Education, Training and Science |
Some refugee and migrant resettlement services |
Table 2 below briefly outlines how administrative functions of refugee
and asylum seeker programs could be overhauled.
It builds on the work done by the Human Rights Council and others
advocating a tough but fair refugee policy based on clear principles.
The table below sets out how
some of the functions in relation to asylum seekers and refugees might
change. The functions are based on the
principled alternative refugee policy prepared by the Human Rights Council of
Australia.
Function |
Change |
The case for change |
The case against change |
Identity and security checking, health screening of
unauthorized arrivals[17] |
Immigration and health department officials Officials to be given training in human rights and refugee
law and government obligations |
No substantive change |
|
Appointment of Guardian for unaccompanied Minors |
Guardianship to be moved from Immigration Minister to
delegated authority under Minister for Family and Community Services/Youth
and Children’s Affairs. Individual[18] to be
appointed to each child to act as advocate in all non-legal issues. New
Federal Children’s Commissioner to be allocated monitoring role. |
It is inappropriate for Minister for Immigration to be
children’s guardian and jailer[19]. It would ensure greater external scrutiny
of the treatment of the child through refugee application process. More professional expertise in ensuring
that the primary guiding principle of best interest’s of child is applied. |
Until the child’s visa status is determined the
Immigration Minister should retain responsibility for all issues to do with
the child’s welfare. |
Administration of Asylum-Seeker Detention Facilities |
Move to Federal Justice Department, within Attorney
General’s. States to be involved in
supervising operation of facilities |
Courts, police, prisons and all other detention facilities
fall within scope of Commonwealth and State Justice portfolios. Detention is not the core business of
immigration, population or multicultural department. DIMIA’s
administration has been plagued by problems, crisis and controversy. |
DIMIA has been running the Centres
for long time. All detainees are in
for non-criminal immigration related matters. |
On-shore assessment of asylum-seeker claims[20] |
An independent tribunal should make first determination of
asylum claims within 30 days. The
tribunal should have three members, including at lease one with human
rights/legal expertise. Move
responsibility for tribunal from DIMIA to Attorney-General’s Department. |
Refugee and asylum seekers are not migrants. Australia has clearly defined legal responsibilities to refugees and asylum seekers, while issues of migration are discretionary. |
It is not clear who is a refugee until after processing of
claims. DIMIA has delegated authority
under the Minister to assess all visa claims) DIMIA has expertise. |
Issue bridging visas with appropriate restrictions on
movement to those not a health or security risk[21] within
30 days. |
Independent Tribunal should consider all application and
make determination. AGs to make
government case for or against visa to Tribunal |
Puts humanitarian issues first. |
|
Ensure that each asylum seeker in the community is
adequately supported, assisted and fulfills any reporting requirements |
Move from DIMIA oversight to case management officers in
FACS, DETS and State Government Dep’ts |
Puts emphasis on support in the community and issues of
community integration. |
Refugees demand many of the same services as migrants and
some asylum seekers are illegal migrants so it makes sense to deal with them
in the same portfolio area) |
Ensure that each asylum seeker in detention receives
individual assessment on need to continue detention[22]. |
Move from DIMIA to case management officers in Attorney
General’s department. Decision to be
made by Tribunal. Cases of children to be assessed by panel including child
health specialists and best interest of child acknowledged as primary
consideration[23]. |
|
|
Ensure prompt access to independent review of any
independent orders for continued detention/First review of rejected asylum
claims |
Tribunal with appellate panel for review applications
dealing with detention issues and substantive issues of refugee recognition..
Appellate panel dealing with detention issues should include medical
expertise. Tribunal appointments to be
made either by AG or independent appointments commission. Access to judicial
review |
The RRT is not functioning adequately, has limited scope
& decisions have become highly contested. It is not sufficiently
independent as the Minister has the power to hire and fire, tenure of members
is short and single-member panels are open to influence. Increasing numbers
of RRT decisions are being successfully challenged in the courts. Gov’t had planned
to abolish anyway in reform of administrative
tribunals. |
Government was planning changes anyway to RRT and other
administrative decisions tribunals.
Reduces power and discretion of the Minister. Labor established RRT. |
Ministerial discretion on refugee issues |
Relieve Minister from responsibility for, and discretion
on, adjudicating on individual refugee issues. Delegate discretionary power to refugee
determination tribunal. |
Has been a huge increase in the number of discretionary
decisions as the rest of the system has tightened. (Discretionary power gives
Minister power of patronage that works to silence critics and is being used
inappropriately.) |
How would the independent body be constituted? How would it be different from the Refugee Review Tribunal? |
Establish Independent Inspector of Detention Facilities |
Scrutinise
operation of refugee and asylum-seeker processing and detention facilities with
powers to receive and investigate complaints and visit detention facilities
at will and without notice. |
Function not currently performed. In line with UN Convention Against Torture
and international guidelines on the prevention of torture. Mirrors state practice on prisons. |
|
Establish refugee and asylum seeker issues advisory
committee comprising community representatives. |
To increase community understanding and awareness of refugee issues and recommend changes, provide level of independent scrutiny of system. Possibly located within Prime Minister and Cabinet. |
Currently a lack of knowledge about refugees in the
community and possibly a sense of exclusion from what is seen as an ethnic
issue. |
|
[1] Human Rights Council Of Australia, Tough But Fair – A Better Policy For The Processing And Treatment Of Asylum Seekers, July 2002
[2] The current government has shrunk the family reunion program imposing enormous strains and hardships on many families. It has increased the revenue raised from this program in non-refundable deposits from applicants and slowed down the process. It has placed a greater emphasis on English language ability.
[3] 1998 HREOC Report Those who've come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals, p 233
[4] The intervention of the Navy, the deaths of many at sea and the fall of the Taliban and more effective interdiction in third countries appear to have succeeded in halting the flow of asylum-seekers.
[5] 1998 HREOC Report Those who've come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals, p 233
[6] Recommendation 16.1 http://www.humanrights.gov.au/pdf/human_rights/asylum_seekers/h5_2_2.pdf
[7] 1998 HREOC Report Those who've come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals, p 234
[8] Source is the 1999 Refugee Council of Australia Intake Submission
[9] While MOU’s have been signed with some State Governments over access and provision of services, these have been limited.
[10] Roderick Campbell, Canberra Times 20 August, 2002 Immigration officials were taken to task yesterday in the ACT Coroners court over their handling of the case of Shahraz Kiane. See also Inquest into death of Mr Mohammed Saleh, an asylum seeker who died while under immigration detention in the Hollywood Private Hospital in Perth on 23 June 2001 – WA Coroners Court, August 2002.
[11] A
Federal Court judge has severely criticised the
Refugee Review Tribunal's handling of two cases for asylum, saying its
deliberations were difficult to comprehend, biased and based on a selective use
of evidence. Russell Skelton, The Age
[12] Refugee
Council of
[13] The statement of claims that accompanies the application for refugee status is a Statutory Declaration and, as such, requires the person signing it to be over the age of majority.
[14] Refugee Council of Australia Submission into HREOC Inquiry on Children in Detention, p 6
[15] RCOA’s submission highlights examples from a number of other jurisdictions and makes a number of detailed recommendations for how Ministerial guardianship powers could be delegated to a Panel of Advisers.
[16] Could include a new Coastguard service
[17] Principles 1, 5
[18] Refugee Council of Australia has recommended delegation of Ministerial Guardianship responsibility to a special Panel of Advisers.
[19] See submissions to HREOC Children in Detention Enquiry from Chilout and for extensive argument for change.
[20] Principle 2
[21] Principles 7, 8. While all detainees will be individually assessed for detention or release, priority for release will be given to unaccompanied minors
children and close relatives of a child detainee, those older than 75 years of age, single women, those requiring specialist medical attention that cannot be provided in detention, especially if they have had previous experience of torture or trauma.
[22] Principle 7. The continued
detention of some asylum seekers will be justified and reasonable and
acceptable under international law: those who have not lodged an application
for a protection visa; those who are considered on reasonable grounds to pose a
threat to national security or public order or public health or safety; those
who are assessed as very likely to abscond; those who refuse to undertake or
fail the health screening; those who do not assist the identification and
determination process.
The
critical element is that these assessments are made on an individual, person by
person basis and are not general judgements applied to
an entire group of asylum seekers or to all asylum seekers.
[23] Principle 9.