Band 4 (transitional support) 47 people People released from detention through the grant of a visa Short term transitional support Referrals to community support services including Medicare and Centrelink Assistance to find accommodation Band 5 (community assistance support) 809 people Lawful non-citizens with complex barriers to resolving their immigration status Casework support to address health and wellbeing, vulnerabilities and other identified barriers Band 6 (asylum seeker assistance scheme) 22,732 people People seeking asylum who are experiencing financial hardship Casework assistance Income support paid at 89% of equivalent Centrelink rates Community alternatives to detention promote better health and wellbeing outcomes than closed detention, provided that fundamental rights are respected and basic needs are met. One of the most positive developments in this regard since the publication of the Commission’s first Snapshot Report has been the reinstatement of work rights for most asylum seekers living in the community. As at 25 August 2016, 27,005 asylum seekers who arrived in Australia by boat were living in the community on Bridging Visas with work rights. The Commission warmly welcomes the reinstatement of work rights. There remain concerns about the services currently delivered through the SRSS program (particularly under Band 6) and whether they are sufficient to ensure an adequate standard of living. Studies by the Australian Red Cross and UNHCR have found that asylum seekers living in the community face destitution, social isolation and challenges in securing adequate housing and employment. Limited access to English language tuition and other key services (such as employment support services) also hamper their ability to establish themselves in the community. conditions are of particular concern in light of the prolonged delays in the processing of asylum claims since 2012. As at the beginning of 2017, of the 30,814 asylum seekers currently in Australia who previously arrived by boat and are undergoing refugee status determination, just 6,610 have received a final decision. Around 40 per cent (12,583 people) have not yet lodged a visa application. Both the Australian Red Cross and UNHCR identified uncertainty relating to the processing of claims as a key factor contributing to poor mental health outcomes. Researchers at the University of Melbourne have described a clinical syndrome specifically related to the prolonged process of seeking asylum, termed ‘protracted asylum seeker syndrome’. Additionally, at least seven people seeking asylum have committed suicide while living in the community since the beginning of 2014.
Screening interviews could be brief and not sufficiently detailed or probing to ensure that all relevant protection claims were raised The process could be used not simply for screening but also for substantive assessment of protection claims without the normal safeguards People subjected to the screening process were not informed of their right to seek legal advice and were only provided with reasonable facilities to contact a legal adviser if they made a specific request People who were ‘screened out’ were not given a written record of the reasons for the decision, nor did they have access to independent review of such decisions The process was applied to vulnerable groups (including unaccompanied children) who may not have received adequate support through the process. In September 2013, a new form of screening was incorporated into Operation Sovereign Borders, involving the screening of asylum claims at sea. Operation Sovereign Borders and screening at sea Operation Sovereign Borders is a military-led border security operation which aims to counter people smuggling, including through preventing the entry to Australia of boats carrying asylum seekers. Beginning in December 2013, boats have been intercepted and returned to their point of departure ‘where it is safe to do so’. Since Operation Sovereign Borders commenced, 29 boats carrying 740 people have been intercepted and returned. In the case of people arriving from Indonesia, turnback operations have involved forcibly transferring asylum seekers onto ‘unsinkable’ lifeboats which are then set adrift outside Indonesian waters. People arriving directly from Sri Lanka and Vietnam have been repatriated in cooperation with the governments of these countries after undergoing a screening process at sea. Boat turnbacks and screening at sea raise many of the same concerns as the enhanced screening process, particularly in regard to the conduct of screening interviews, the assessment of protection claims in the absence of normal safeguards and lack of access to legal advice. In addition, the circumstances under which screening takes place during turnback operations — at sea, via teleconference and while the person is effectively being detained on board an Australian vessel — are not conducive to a fair or thorough assessment of protection claims. Since Operation Sovereign Borders was introduced, the Australian Government has maintained a policy of refraining from public comment in relation to ‘on-water matters’. As a result, it is difficult to assess whether turnbacks are being conducted in accordance with Australia’s international human rights obligations, including whether adequate safeguards are in place to prevent refoulement and guarantee safety of life at sea.
Appendices Appendix 1: Summary of progress last Snapshot Report Summary of developments Progress rating Immigration detention Decisions to detain are made on a case-by-case basis Detention remains mandatory for all unlawful non-citizens – Detention is allowed only for a strictly limited time No legislative time limit on detention Average length of detention has increased significantly ↓ Decisions to detain are subject to regular review by a court or tribunal No regular review of decisions to detain – Conditions of detention meet international standards Several remote detention facilities have been closed ↑ Minimum standards of treatment are codified in law No minimum standards are codified in law – Detention of children There is a legislative presumption against the detention of children Mandatory detention applies equally to adults and children – Children are not held in closed detention facilities Number of children held in closed facilities has reduced dramatically ↑ Unaccompanied children have an independent guardian Minister remains the guardian of unaccompanied children –
Refugee status determination process reflects international obligations and provides safeguards against Ongoing concerns the quality of refugee status determination under third country arrangements – Applications for refugee status are processed in a timely fashion Rate of processing has increased significantly ↑ Detention is used as a last resort and for the shortest possible time Regional Processing Centres are now operating ‘open centre’ arrangements ↑ People subject to third country processing enjoy an adequate standard of living Limited improvement in living conditions – People subject to third country processing enjoy physical safety Multiple incidents and allegations of physical and sexual assault, including one death resulting from assault ↓ Refugees have access to timely durable solutions Resettlement arrangements with Cambodia and New Guinea are unlikely to provide long-term solutions Details of resettlement arrangement with USA remain unclear – Third country processing arrangements are subject to independent monitoring No monitoring body with all the key features necessary to be fully effective – Discrimination based on mode of arrival All refugees have access to permanent residency Temporary protection reintroduced for refugees who arrived without visas ↓ Refugees who hold temporary have access to the same services Temporary visa holders are eligible for fewer services and ↓
and entitlements as permanent Protection Visa holders entitlements, particularly in relation to tertiary education and settlement services All refugee and humanitarian entrants have equal access to family reunion opportunities Protection Visa holders and people who arrived by boat and/or without visas face restrictions on access to family reunion opportunities ↓ Appendix 2: Timeline of key developments the introduction of mandatory immigration detention in Australia 1992 Mandatory immigration detention (for up to 273 days) introduced as an interim measure for designated non-citizens who arrive by boat without visas 1994 Mandatory detention broadened to apply to all non-citizens who arrive without visas and the 273-day time limit removed. Bridging Visas introduced as an alternative to detention 1998 Commission releases report: Those who’ve come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals 1999 Temporary Protection (TPVs) introduced for refugees who arrive without visas 2001 Third country processing established in Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG), a policy which becomes known as the ‘Pacific Solution’ Offshore territories including Christmas Island excised from Australia’s migration zone. Non-statutory refugee status determination process introduced for asylum seekers who arrive in excised territories without visas