It looks like another case of proper policy losing out to the politics of perception and positioning is unfolding, with the Coalition set to oppose legislation that will scrap the iniquitous, inefficient and counter-productive system of charging people for the cost of putting them in immigration detention.
The injustices of this system have been raised in Crikey and elsewhere many times.
At the end of last year a report by the Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Migration examining immigration detention produced the unanimous recommendation from Liberal, Labor and Greens members that “as a priority, the Australian Government introduce legislation to repeal the liability of immigration detention costs”.
The Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, announced back in March that he would abolish this practice, introducing the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 into the Senate, where it is due to be debated and voted on next month.
At the time of the Minister’s announcement, I wrote that “making changes in this area still invites some political risk, although the fact that (the Minister) is acting on a recommendation which was supported by Liberal MPs will hopefully avert any politics being played with this eminently sensible measure.”
It seems that my hopefulness was misplaced. An article by Phillip Coorey reports that:
The Opposition immigration spokeswoman, Sharman Stone, took a submission to shadow cabinet recommending the Coalition support the (Abolishing Detention Debt) bill. She was rolled.
It was argued that the Opposition could not blame Labor’s “softening” of policy for the latest surge in boat arrivals, and then support such a bill. Furthermore, the Coalition believed philosophically that taxpayers should not bear the full cost of illegal arrivals. The party room ratified the decision on budget day and only a few moderates, including Petro Georgiou and Judi Moylan, complained.
As Coorey notes,
Australia is the only country that charges detainees – even those found to be lawfully in the country – for their board and transport costs. The charge is currently $125.40 a day. Some accrue debts of more than $100,000, which severely hampers their attempts to settle in the country once released. The system is costly to administer. Of the $54 million in debts accrued to June 30, 2008, only 3.3 per cent was recovered.
So it seems that a system which:
• hinders the effective settlement of many migrants;
• does not deter a single asylum seeker;
• is expensive and inefficient to administer;
• treats people in administrative detention who have not been convicted of anything worse than criminals in jails by charging them the cost of their imprisonment might be being retained, and
• was unanimously recommended to be abolished “as a priority” by all members of a parliamentary Inquiry that examined the issue thoroughly;
may now end up being retained – presumably because it suits the Opposition to paint it as an example of the government allegedly being ‘soft’.
The fate of the legislation now seems likely to depend on the attitudes of Senators Fielding and Xenophon, both of who need to support it for it to pass – unless one or two of the Liberal Senators decide they should support what their colleagues on the Migration Committee thought at the end of last year and vote to repeal this system.
UPDATE: (1/6) This article by Michelle Foster in The Age gives a detailed outline of the issue.
5 Comments
Charging these poor sods for being locked up? Laying Blainey’s ghost seems to be beyond the ALP. Most of them are Hazaras and Iraqis. The Hazaras have been screwed by everyone in Afghanistan since time immoral. You can’t get a bigger loser than the biggest loser in Afghanistan. The Iraqis, for those old enough to recall the inadvertent invasion by the USA in the early 2000s, were briskly taken from the 1960s to the 1400s by the Coalition of the Shilling. How they paid for being mistaken for Iran! As the late President Bush lamented when opening an atlas thoughtfully provided by The Hague prosecutor in 2012, “Shucks. We were close.”
“But no cigar” said the judge.
Will this legislation include forgiving existing ‘debts’? Is it even possible to legislate to remove those debts?
Hi Michael – it has always been possible for the debts to be removed, but only by specific decision of the Minister (I think the Finance Minister, from memory). But this was a grace and favour decision, not something that could be legally persued or appealed. More often, the debt would be put on hold – the requirement to repay stopped, but the possibilty it could be ‘re-activiated’ was left hanging as a way of keeping some pressure over people.
In regards to this legislation, the Minister’s Second Reading Speech (made when the Bill is introduced) said
“the Bill will provide for the extinguishment of all outstanding detention debt for non-citizens who are in immigration detention, or persons who have been in immigration detention, and liable third parties at the time of commencement of the legislation.”
So yes, I presume it will include forgiving existing ‘debts’.
Thanks Andrew. I’m pleased to hear that… I just considered it rather embarrassing that we, as a society, would consider it okay to charge people for their incarceration. Hence, ‘debts’.
Changes in the treatment of asylum seekers is now the only issue that makes me feel justified in handing out ALP HTV cards at the last election.
Andrew,
After several years of battling the department I was deported from Australia on “character grounds”. Though s501’s (the character test) are rarely covered, except when in the context of “tougher laws to protect Australians” and other easily digested catchwords and phrases, as it is political suicide to show compassion for people convicted of crimes, I must say that people like us have it far worse than refugees. After serving our sentences we are made to feel like criminals again. On the first day of our parole, as if by design we are taken from jail to immigration detention, never even seeing time out in the community. If we are such a risk then why were we given parole? Doesn’t the Australian community have any faith in those whom it tasks with its protection? At least the parole board are qualified to make these decisions. In the case of immigration detention they are made by bureaucrats who have no such qualifications and I am certain that the “new” detention regime touted by Evans will not be a benefit at all to 501s as the gov’t of the day knows that it is politically beneficial to use 501s as whipping boys, particularly in a climate already tinged with fear and uncertainty. This was already proven by Evans’ speech in July 2008 in which he said he has no intention of releasing 501s from detention, even though their sentence ended and will deport them as soon as possible.
My question to you is that 501s just like asylum seekers, cannot vote. That said what do you and your party intend to do for the remaining people in detention who are of “bad character” and will not likely receive the public’s sympathies?
As a side issue I would like everyone to know that DIAC, in the name of public safety has done it again. There are at least 10 people in Villawood who were released as part of the SALES v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship full federal court case which came down in July of 2008. The court found that the minister could not lawfully cancel the visas HELD but not GRANTED. Yes the devil is in the details but that is what the law said. As a result 30 people were released from detention. What did DIAC do? They changed the law in the middle of the night and sent the swat team out to grab the people who it released. There was no taking account of the changed circumstances of these people. The reasoning of DIAC for the heavyhandedness was their view that people were back out committing crimes. This in absence of any arrest or charge for such alleged activities.
There are people fighting this now and I would like to know what you and your party is doing to help the people who have been adversely affected by this law. I say help knowing that some of them have committed in some case violent crimes. But that is my point. If we portion out justice on the basis of those whom we think “deserve” it or those whom we like then it is not justice anymore…it then becomes “just us”. And for everytime you let a member of a marginalised group be subjected to such harsh outcomes without challenge you make it all too easy for the day to come when you find yourself subject to draconian laws, in the interests of community protection, whose justification was supported by your long held silence.
2 Trackbacks