Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Australian Government spending on irregular maritime arrivals and counter - people smuggling activity
Go To First Hit



Download PDFDownload PDF

ISSN 1834-9854

Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services

RESEARCH PAPER Updated 4 September 2013

Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

Harriet Spinks, Social Policy Section Cat Barker « and » David Watt, Foreign Affairs, Defence « and » Security Section with the assistance of the Law « and » Bills Digest Section

Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1

« Maritime » surveillance « and » interception .............................................................................................. 1

Customs ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Defence ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Detention « and » processing ................................................................................................................... 7

Offshore asylum seeker management............................................................................................ 8

Regional Processing ................................................................................................................ 10

Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) .......................................................................... 12

Onshore detention ...................................................................................................................... 12

Capital expenditure « on » detention centres .................................................................................... 13

Security assessments ................................................................................................................... 14

Other costs .................................................................................................................................. 15

Policing ................................................................................................................................... 16

« Australian » Federal Police ................................................................................................... 16

State « and » territory police ................................................................................................... 16

Welfare .................................................................................................................................. 17

Legal costs associated with people « smuggling » ................................................................................... 18

Investigations .............................................................................................................................. 18

Prosecutions ................................................................................................................................ 19

Legal aid for those charged .......................................................................................................... 20

Imprisonment costs ..................................................................................................................... 20

« Counter » - « people » « smuggling » activities ................................................................................................. 21

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 27

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

1

Introduction

There has been much discussion in both the media « and » political debate in recent times about the substantial « and » rising costs to the « Australian » « Government » of intercepting, detaining « and » processing asylum seekers arriving by boat. Criticism of these costs has come from many quarters, including refugee advocates « and » the current federal Opposition. Despite the volume of public comment « on » this issue, there is no comprehensive, publicly available source of data outlining the precise costs incurred in the interception, detention « and » processing of asylum seekers who arrive unauthorised by boat.

No « Australian » « government » has ever provided a single figure estimate of the total cost of these activities. This is, in part, because the costs are incurred across a number of agencies « and » portfolios, but also because costs are incurred across various programs, many of which have broader objectives than dealing with « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » (IMAs). This means that it is often difficult or impossible to disaggregate these costs.

This research paper outlines the various programs « and » agencies involved in the interception, detention « and » processing of IMAs. In order to paint a more complete picture of the costs associated with people « smuggling » , « and » the « Government » ’s efforts to curb it, the paper also examines the programs relating to « counter » - « people » « smuggling » activities, « and » the prosecution « and » incarceration of alleged people smugglers. It does not attempt to place a definitive figure « on » these costs. Rather, it highlights the available information « on » expenditure relating to these activities, as well as some of the difficulties in isolating expenditure that specifically relates to boat « arrivals » .

« Maritime » surveillance « and » interception

Under the auspices of the multi-agency taskforce, Border Protection Command (BPC), the Department of Defence (Defence) « and » the « Australian » Customs « and » Border Protection Service (Customs) are the two agencies responsible for intercepting « and » transporting asylum seekers arriving by boat.1 However, as outlined below, this is only one aspect of these agencies’ « maritime » surveillance « and » border security responsibilities. Attempting to separate all the different elements those responsibilities entail is a difficult « and » somewhat academic exercise.

Customs

For 2013-14, Customs was allocated $342.2 million for Program 1.4, Civil « Maritime » Surveillance « and » Response, which includes responding to ‘security threats in Australia’s « maritime » domain’, comprising IMAs, as well as illegal « activity » in protected areas, illegal exploitation of natural resources, marine

1. For information « on » Border Protection Command (BPC) see BPC, ‘About us’, BPC website, accessed 30 August 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

2

pollution, prohibited imports « and » exports, compromise to bio-security, piracy, robbery or violence at sea, « and » « maritime » terrorism.2

This funding model is sensible in operational terms, as surveillance « and » patrol activities simultaneously monitor a range of « maritime » threats, « and » there is flexibility to direct resources in response to the most prominent threats at any given time. However, it means that it is not possible to discern what proportion of the overall funding allocation is spent « on » responding to IMAs « and » how that proportion varies from year to year. Nonetheless, Budget documents, Customs’ annual reports « and » responses to questioning at Senate Estimates hearings indicate that such activities have comprised a significant component of Customs’ work in this program area in recent years.

The diversion of a vessel normally allocated to the Southern Ocean to transport IMAs « and » funding in the 2013-14 Budget for additional vessel patrol days are noted below in the discussion « on » Customs’ leased vessels. In addition, Customs refers in its Annual Report 2011-12 to the ‘reposturing’ of surveillance aircraft from the east to west coast of Australia, « and » conducting surveillance further from shore ‘in response to the evolving « maritime » security threat environment’ for IMAs. 3 The impact of responding to IMAs « on » the recent allocation of resources was confirmed in the following exchange between Senator Kroger « and » the heads of Customs « and » BPC in May 2013:

Senator KROGER: Would it be reasonable to say that the primary focus of border protection « and » the assets, in particular, the Bay class, is the overall management of the SIEVs [suspected « irregular » entry vessels] being identified « and » coming in?

Mr Pezzullo: At present « and » in recent years, that is empirically absolutely the case. That is where our assets are.

Rear Adm. Johnston: I could add that there is an overlay of activities. Some of the areas where we are postured in terms of « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » are also key fishing zones for us, so the activities are often done concurrently. An aircraft surveillance flight that we may run that is looking for suspected « irregular » entry vessels also looks for illegal foreign fishing activities, marine pollution—a range of events. So all of the assets that I am using do multiple tasks concurrently rather than focus « on » a single « activity » . But certainly the stationing at the moment is partly driven around « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » .

4

Table 1 details Customs’ expenditure « on » its Civil « Maritime » Surveillance « and » Response function from 2003-04 to 2011-12, « and » budget estimates for 2012-13 to 2016-17. It should be remembered that funds allocated to Customs for « maritime » surveillance « and » interception « and » border enforcement have

2. « Australian » « Government » , Portfolio budget statements 2013-14: budget paper no. 1.2: Attorney-General’s Portfolio, pp. 106, 118, accessed 15 May 2013. This is distinct from the funding Customs receives for measures aimed at preventing people « smuggling » , which is covered in a separate section of this paper « on » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » activities.

3. « Australian » Customs « and » Border Protection Service (Customs), Annual report 2011-12, Customs, Canberra, 2012, p. 63, accessed 6 August 2013. 4. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Official committee Hansard, 29 May 2013, p. 40, accessed 6 August 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

3

historically been spread across a number of programs or output groups, « and » disaggregating funding is difficult. For example, in 2009-10 Customs moved from reporting against output groups to reporting against programs, resulting in the realignment of several functions, including civil « maritime » surveillance response.5 For consistency, only expenditure « on » Civil « Maritime » Surveillance « and » Response has been included below.

Table 1: Customs funding for Civil « Maritime » Surveillance « and » Response 2003-04 to 2016-17

Year Expenditure (m)

2003-04 $257.2

2004-05 $307.0

2005-06 $237.0

2006-07 $332.8

2007-08 $315.0

2008-09 $137.3

2009-10 $292.9

2010-11 $303.8

2011-12 $307.6

2012-13 (revised budget) $328.7

2013-14 (budget estimate) $342.2

2014-15 (budget estimate) $265.8

2015-16 (budget estimate) $280.8

2016-17 (budget estimate) $277.8

Source: Customs, Annual reports 2003-04 to 2011-12 « and » Attorney-General's Portfolio, Portfolio budget statements 2013-14.

Customs operates eight Bay Class patrol boats, which may be used to respond to IMAs, although they are not solely dedicated to this task. 6 The Bay Class boats are reaching the end of their operational life « and » , in the 2010-11 Budget, funding was approved to replace them with larger « and » more capable ships—to be known as Cape Class. In June 2011 the then Minister for Home Affairs announced that the contract to supply the eight new Cape Class boats would be worth $350 million.7 This is in addition to the $42.6 million over four years provided in the 2010-11 Budget for operational costs associated with the replacement of the Bay Class boats.8 The first of the Cape Class boats was launched in January 2013 « and » has been undergoing an operational trial.9 The full fleet of

5. This transition « and » realignment is outlined in « Australian » « Government » , Portfolio budget statements 2009-10: budget paper no. 1.2: Attorney-General’s Portfolio, pp. 116-17, accessed 15 May 2013. 6. Customs, ‘Customs « and » Border Protection Bay Class vessels’, Customs website, September 2010, accessed 19 March 2013. 7. B O’Connor (Minister for Home Affairs), Austal announced as Cape Class patrol boat preferred tenderer, media

release, Canberra, 13 June 2011, accessed 19 March 2013. 8. « Australian » « Government » , Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2010-11, p. 97, accessed 19 March 2013. 9. J Clare (Minister for Home Affairs), New Customs « and » Border Protection patrol boat launched, media release,

16 January 2013, accessed 19 March 2013; Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Official committee Hansard, 29 May 2013, op. cit., p. 41.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

4

eight is expected to be operational by September 2015. 10 As at February 2013, the project was running « on » schedule « and » to budget. 11

In response to a question in Senate Estimates hearings held in October 2010 regarding the maintenance costs of the Bay Class vessels for the remainder of their operational lives, Customs provided the following information:

The estimated costs of maintenance of the Bay Class vessels are dependent upon the transition period during production of the new Cape Class Patrol Boats, tasking levels « and » emergent defects.

The Bay Class vessels will be replaced by Cape Class Patrol Boats « on » a one-for-one basis, with transition upon operational acceptance of the new boats. This will reduce the Bay Class vessel maintenance costs in the latter stages of the forward estimates.

...The total estimated maintenance costs for Bay Class vessels, assuming a reduction in number of these vessels as the new patrol boats are rolled out, are:

2010/11 $7.2m

2011/12 $11.0m

2012/13 $12.2m

2013/14 $5.5m

2014/15 $1.4m

Total estimate: $37.3m12

In addition to the Bay Class patrol boats, Customs manages the contracts for three leased vessels which are also deployed in border patrol activities. These are the ACV ( « Australian » Customs Vessel) Ocean Protector, ACV Triton « and » ACV Ashmore Guardian.13 As with the Bay Class vessels, these are not deployed exclusively for intercepting « and » transporting IMAs. However, this responsibility represents a large share of the patrol « activity » undertaken by these vessels.

In 2010-11 the ACV Triton « and » the ACV Ocean Protector each undertook five per cent more patrol days than their target, due to being required to ‘facilitate the long haul transportation of passengers « and » crew from intercepted SIEVs’.14 In 2011-12, the ACV Triton undertook 30 per cent more patrol days than its target. The ACV Ocean Protector undertook only one additional patrol day, but 75 of its

10. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Official committee Hansard, 29 May 2013, op. cit., p. 41. 11. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Official committee Hansard, 12 February 2013, pp. 50- 51, accessed 9 May 2013. 12. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Attorney-General's

Portfolio, Supplementary Budget Estimates 2010-11, October 2010, Question no. 34, accessed 19 March 2013. 13. The lease « on » the Ashmore Guardian will expire « on » 31 December 2013: « Australian » « Government » , Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2013-14, p. 89, accessed 7 August 2013. Funding for a dedicated surveillance « and » response vessel at Ashmore Reef was announced in the 2012-13 Budget: « Australian » « Government » , Budget measures: budget

paper no. 2: 2012-13, pp. 81-82, viewed 20 March 2013. 14. Customs, Annual report 2010-11, Customs, Canberra, 2011, p. 99, accessed 20 March 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

5

121 patrol days (approximately 62 per cent) were spent in northern waters, where it was diverted to transport IMAs, instead of the Southern Ocean, to which it is nominally allocated. 15 Funding was provided in the 2013-14 Budget to increase the number of patrol days for the ACV Triton in 2012-13 « and » for the ACV Protector in 2012-13 « and » 2013-14 as part of the measure ‘Combating people « smuggling » —strengthening response capability to « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » ’.16

Defence

Defence has budgeted $9.9 million (to be absorbed by the Department) in the 2013-14 Budget for ‘Operation RESOLUTE’, which contributes to Australia’s whole-of- « government » « maritime » surveillance efforts.17 Operation RESOLUTE is focused « on » combating the same eight « maritime » security threats as Customs’ Civil « Maritime » Surveillance « and » Response program (of which IMAs is one).18

Up to 500 « Australian » Defence Force (ADF) personnel are assigned to Operation RESOLUTE at any one time, « and » permanent ADF resources allocated to Operation RESOLUTE comprise:

• Air Force AP-3C Orion « maritime » patrol aircraft

• Navy Armidale Class patrol boats operating daily throughout Australia’s northern offshore

« maritime » areas (seven vessels)

• « Australian » Army Regional Force Surveillance Unit patrols

• a Transit Security Element of approximately 36 Navy personnel « and »

• a standby Navy Major Fleet Unit (usually an Anzac Class frigate) for northern waters response. 19

In addition, the « Australian » Hydrographic Service’s Leeuwin Class vessels, HMAS Leeuwin « and » HMAS Melville, have, at times, been tasked with duties pertaining to Operation RESOLUTE. During 2011, these vessels spent 80.5 per cent of their 317 days at sea « on » Operation RESOLUTE. 20 The Leeuwin Class vessels cost an average of $112,904 per day to operate.21

15. Customs, Annual report 2011-12, op. cit., pp. 61-63. 16. « Australian » « Government » , Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2013-14, op. cit., p. 89. The total funding for the measure was $68.4 million. However, the total also included extending the lease of vessels « and » surveillance aircraft « and » deployment of a Bay Class vessel « and » surveillance aircraft to ‘high priority areas’. The additional patrol days

would only account for a small proportion of the total funding. 17. « Australian » « Government » , Portfolio budget statements 2013-14: budget related paper no. 1.4A, Defence Portfolio, p. 16, accessed 7 August 2013. 18. Department of Defence (Defence), ‘Border protection’, Defence website, accessed 7 August 2013. 19. Ibid.

20. B Carr (Minister for Foreign Affairs), ‘Answer to Question « on » notice: Defence’, [Questioner: D Johnston], Senate, Debates, 27 February 2012, p. 975, accessed 13 August 2013. 21. B Carr (Minister for Foreign Affairs), ‘Answer to Question « on » notice: Defence naval vessels’, [Questioner: D Johnston], Senate, Debates, 27 February 2013, p. 1236, accessed 13 August 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

6

The ‘net additional cost’ of Operation RESOLUTE since it began is outlined in Table 2. The net additional cost is the estimated cost above « and » beyond normal operating expenditure plus capital investment (but minus savings made as a result of cancelling other activities), as well as costs recovered from third parties. In other words, it is not a complete costing of Defence’s contribution to border security.

Table 2: Defence funding for Operation RESOLUTE 1999-00 onwards

1999-00 to 2011- 12 Actual $m

2012-13

Estimated Actual $m

2013-14 Budget Estimate $m

Forward

Estimates $m

Total $m

140.3 9.5 9.9 0.0 159.7

Note: from 2011-12, Defence has absorbed the net additional cost of Operation Resolute. Source: Defence Portfolio, Portfolio budget statements 2013-14.

Defence has been reluctant to provide a more accurate cost for Operation RESOLUTE. In a submission to the Joint Standing Committee « on » Foreign Affairs, Defence « and » Trade it stated:

Defence does not estimate the full cost of operations as this would not enhance budget processes as « Government » seeks only to supplement Defence funding for the net additional costs of conducting operations. 22

The Lowy Institute’s Defence Military Fellow, James Brown, has recently attempted to calculate a more accurate figure for the cost of Operation RESOLUTE. 23 Using data taken from the « Australian » Defence Force Posture Review « and » Defence answers to various questions asked in the Parliament, Brown estimates that the real cost is at least $262 million per year. 24 This is an estimate, but one that points to the gap between the ‘net additional cost’ set out in Defence annual reports « and » Portfolio Budget Statements, « and » the total cost.

Brown excludes one-off deployments (the example he gives is the deployment of the Royal « Australian » Air Force (RAAF) Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron to activate RAAF Learmonth in 2008), but the cost of border protection activities is further increased by these kinds of activities.25 For example, the « Government » ’s August 2013 Economic Statement identifies an additional $15 million for Defence in 2013-14 for ‘Papua New Guinea Regional Resettlement Arrangement— accommodation support services’. 26 In practice, this means the Royal « Australian » Navy Landing Ship Dock HMAS Choules has been sent to Manus Island as part of an ADF Joint Task Force (which also

22. Joint Standing Committee « on » Foreign Affairs Defence « and » Trade, Review of the Defence annual report 2009-10, 27 February 2012, pp. 29-30, accessed 13 August 2013. 23. J Brown, ‘Asylum seekers: the cost to defence’, Interpreter weblog, Lowy Institute for International Policy, 30 July 2013, accessed 12 August 2013. 24. The « Australian » Defence Force posture review is available « on » Defence’s website. 25. More recently, Defence spent $5.6 million to temporarily re-open RAAF Learmonth in 2011-12: « Australian »

« Government » , Portfolio additional estimates 2012-13, Defence Portfolio, p. 39, accessed 15 August 2013. 26. C Bowen (Treasurer) « and » P Wong (Minister for Finance « and » Deregulation), Economic statement, August 2013, p. 57, accessed 12 August 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

7

includes the use of C130J « and » King Air 350 aircraft) providing assistance to the Department of Immigration « and » Citizenship (DIAC). HMAS Choules will provide offshore accommodation « and » support to ADF members « and » other « Australian » « Government » staff as well as ship-to-shore services.27 Defence has stated that the average daily cost of operating HMAS Choules is $201,621. 28

During August 2012 media reports suggested that the Armidale Class vessels were suffering from greater than anticipated levels of hull fatigue as a result of increased IMA interceptions.29 The Chief of Navy responded to the media reports stating that they were inaccurate, but confirming that the Armidale Class were undergoing additional maintenance ‘to ensure class wide defects were resolved « and » maintenance backlogs were reduced’ « and » that this was occurring ‘against the backdrop of a period of very high operational intensity’.30 The Defence White Paper 2013 stated that the « Government » would move to an early replacement for the Armidale Class patrol boats but neither the White Paper, nor the 2013-14 Budget, indicated how much this would cost or when it would occur. 31

Detention « and » processing

Detention is currently the largest single identifiable cost associated with asylum seekers arriving by boat. Budget papers reveal that expenditure « on » detention has increased significantly in recent years as « arrivals » have increased.32 The return to offshore processing of IMAs in Nauru « and » Papua New Guinea in August 2012 has also contributed to increased costs in this area.

The Department of Immigration « and » Citizenship (DIAC) has historically not provided detailed information « on » the cost of detention by centre or per detainee, arguing that all centres are used flexibly « and » costs vary day by day depending « on » the number of detainees « and » other variables.33 However, in a response to a question « on » notice from the Joint Select Committee « on » Australia’s Immigration Detention Network in August 2011, DIAC did provide estimates of operating costs for each immigration detention facility for 2011-12. These estimates range from $2 million in operating costs for Perth Immigration Residential Housing, to $200 million for Christmas Island (all facilities).

27. Defence, Defence support to the Department of Immigration « and » Citizenship in Papua New Guinea, media release, 1 August 2013, accessed 13 August 2013. 28. B Carr (Minister for Foreign Affairs), ‘Answer to Question « on » notice: Defence naval vessels’, [Questioner: D Johnston], Senate, Debates, 27 February 2013, p. 1236, accessed 13 August 2013. 29. C Stewart, ‘Patrol boats crack up: asylum demands breaking navy fleet’, The « Australian » , 10 August 2012, p. 1,

accessed 14 August 2013. 30. R Griggs (Chief of Navy), « On » the record: Chief of Navy's letter to News Limited regarding patrol boats article, Defence website, 16 August 2012, accessed 14 August 2013. 31. Defence, Defence White Paper 2013, Canberra, 2013, p. 84, accessed 14 August 2013. 32. For numbers of boat « arrivals » by year from 1976 to 2013 see J Phillips « and » H Spinks, Boat « arrivals » in Australia since

1976, Research paper, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, updated July 2013, viewed 12 August 2013. 33. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Immigration « and » Citizenship portfolio, Supplementary Budget Estimates 2010-11, 19 October 2010, Question 300, accessed 29 August

2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

8

The total estimated cost was $628.8 million, across 19 sites.34 It is important to note however that these are estimates only, « and » actual costs will vary according to factors such as the number of detainees, processing times, « and » specific detainee needs. Attempting to extrapolate from this a reliable figure for the cost of detention per individual is therefore highly problematic.

Offshore asylum seeker management

Expenditure « on » detaining « and » processing asylum seekers who arrive at an offshore place is accounted for under Program 4.3, Offshore Asylum Seeker Management in the Department of Immigration « and » Citizenship (DIAC) portfolio. Prior to 2012-13, Program 4.3 covered all DIAC funding for managing IMAs, including regional cooperation efforts aimed at curbing « arrivals » , « and » refugee status determination processes. In the 2012-13 Budget, these costs were divided between three programs. Program 4.3 is now concerned only with the care « and » management of IMAs in detention centres, community detention, or in the community « on » a Bridging Visa E. Other expenditure which was previously included under Program 4.3 has been moved to two new programs: Program 4.5 Regional Cooperation « and » Associated Activities, « and » Program 4.6 Refugee Status Determination for Offshore Entry Persons.35

The 2013-14 Budget provides a total of almost $2.9 billion for administered « and » departmental expenses under Program 4.3 in 2013-14. 36 This represents a significant increase from the $2.1 billion spent in 2012-13. It is almost ten times more than the $304.3 million that was spent in 2009-10 despite the fact that fewer administered programs are now included under this program area than was the case four years ago. The 2009-10 Budget had anticipated that costs under Program 4.3 would increase in line with increasing numbers of unauthorised boat arrivals.37 Consequently, subsequent budget estimates have fallen short « and » have been revised to meet the costs of the increases in the number of « arrivals » in the last three years. This trend continues in 2013-14 with the « Government » announcing in its Economic Statement in August 2013 that ‘offshore asylum seeker management costs … are expected to be $351 million higher in 2013-14 ($1.3 billion over four years to 2016-17), reflecting updated actual « and » projected unauthorised « maritime » « arrivals » « and » the cost of regional processing centres’. 38

Table 3 shows how expenditure under Program 4.3 has increased over the last six years.

34. Joint Select Committee « on » Australia’s Immigration Detention Network, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Department of Immigration « and » Citizenship, Question 19, 21 November 2011, accessed 29 August 2013. 35. For more information « on » this Budget change see H Spinks, C Barker « and » M Biddington, ‘Responding to unauthorised « arrivals » ’, Budget Review 2012-13, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2012, accessed 12 August 2013. 36. « Australian » « Government » , Portfolio budget statements 2013-14: budget related paper no. 1.11: Immigration « and »

Citizenship Portfolio, p. 55, accessed 12 August 2013. 37. « Australian » « Government » , Portfolio budget statements 2009-10: budget related paper no.1.12: Immigration « and » Citizenship Portfolio, p. 78, accessed 22 August 2013. 38. Economic Statement, August 2013, op. cit., p. 36.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

9

Table 3: DIAC Funding for Offshore Asylum Seeker Management, 2008-09 to 2013-14

2008-09

(estimated actual) $m

2009-10 (estimated actual) $m

2010-11 (estimated actual) $m

2011-12 (estimated actual) $m

2012-13 (estimated actual)$m

2013-14 (Budget

estimate)$m

Administered expenses

Community « and » detention services

35.2 149.4 561.9 780.0 1709.5 2458.1

Management « and » care of « irregular » immigrants in Indonesia

- 5.0 3.0 10.0 - -

Regional cooperation « and » capacity building

17.0 28.9 32.2 47.2 - -

Returns « and » reintegration assistance packages

- - 5.0 6.9 - -

Refugee status determinations for offshore entry persons

- - - 17.4 - -

Regional cooperation framework

- - - 4.4 - -

Regional Support Office - - - 0.7 - -

Departmental expenses 59.2 121.0 160.7 303.8 396.9 409.2

Total administered « and » departmental expenses for Program 4.3 Offshore Asylum Seeker Management

111.5 304.3 762.8 1170 2106.4 2867.4

Source: Immigration « and » Citizenship portfolio, Portfolio budget statements 2009-10 onwards. Note: Departmental expenses include service delivery « and » policy advice « and » program design. These are not disaggregated by each administered component of Program 4.3 in the budget papers.

The 2012-13 Budget introduced the new Program 4.6 Refugee Status Determination for Offshore Entry Persons, with an estimated budget of approximately $40.9 million.39 According to the 2013-14 Budget actual « spending » « on » this program was $26.3 million.40 This program was concerned with merits review « and » judicial review for IMAs. In 2013-14 no funding was allocated against this measure, due to the transfer of the Independent Protection Assessment Office to the Migration Review Tribunal « and » the Refugee Review Tribunal (MRTRRT). 41 MRTRRT funding is not disaggregated

39. « Australian » « Government » , Portfolio budget statements 2012-13: budget related paper no. 1.12: Immigration « and » Citizenship Portfolio, p. 58, accessed 20 August 2013. 40. Portfolio budget statements 2013-14: budget related paper no. 1.11: Immigration « and » Citizenship Portfolio, op. cit., p. 56. 41. Ibid., p. 52.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

10

based « on » an applicant’s mode of arrival, so it is not possible to know how much of its funding will go towards merits review for IMAs.

While DIAC has not been allocated any ongoing funding under Program 4.6, the 2013-14 Budget did provide DIAC with $16.6 million over two years for legal expenses associated with refugee status determinations for IMAs.42

Regional Processing

In August 2012, following the release of the Report of the Expert Panel « on » Asylum Seekers, the Gillard « Government » announced a return to processing of asylum seekers in offshore facilities in Nauru « and » Papua New Guinea.43 Agreements were quickly reached with Nauru « and » Papua New Guinea (PNG) allowing for asylum seekers to be transferred from Australia for processing in ‘Regional Processing Centres’.

The exact costs involved in re-establishing « and » maintaining these centres are difficult to quantify. This is because funding for regional processing in Nauru « and » PNG comes under Program 4.3 Offshore Asylum Seeker Management, « and » there is no specific budget allocation for regional processing within this program area. However, from the information available it is clear that the costs involved are significant. The Expert Panel estimated that:

• the full establishment « and » operation of a regional processing capacity in Nauru accommodating up to 1,500 people would cost between $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion over the forward estimates, including capital costs in the order of $300 million « and »

• the full establishment « and » operation of a regional processing capacity in PNG (such as « on » Manus Island) accommodating up to 600 people would cost in the order of $0.9 billion over the forward estimates, including capital costs in the order of $230 million.44

Following the release of the Expert Panel’s report, the « Government » introduced two appropriation Bills relating to funding for implementation of the Panel’s recommendations. Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel « on » Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 provided for $110.6 million for implementation of the panel’s recommendations, including:

… $1.296 billion to meet expenses arising from the management of higher levels of « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » the operational expenses associated with the implementation of the

42. Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2013-14, op. cit., p. 200. 43. J Gillard (Prime Minister) « and » C Bowen (Minister for Immigration « and » Citizenship), Transcript of press conference, media release, 13 August 2012, accessed 22 August 2013. Offshore processing had been a cornerstone of asylum policy under the Howard « Government » , but was abandoned by the Rudd « Government » in 2008. For further discussion

see J Phillips, The Pacific Solution revisited, Background note, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 4 September 2012, accessed 13 August 2013. 44. A Houston, P Aristotle « and » M L’Estrange, Report of the Expert Panel « on » Asylum Seekers, « Australian » « Government » , August 2012, p. 143, accessed 22 August 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

11

expert panel's recommendations to establish regional processing centres « on » Nauru « and » Manus Island. 45

Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel « on » Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013 provided a further $267 million in capital funding to establish processing centres « on » Nauru « and » Manus Island.46

In July 2013, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, announced that a new agreement had been reached with Papua New Guinea under which asylum seekers would be not only processed in Papua New Guinea, but also settled there, or else in a third country.47 A similar agreement with Nauru quickly followed.48 These agreements impose a potentially significant long-term cost « on » Australia. In addition to the costs involved in transferring people to Pacific Island nations, « and » housing them in processing centres, Australia has committed to providing settlement support to refugees who are resettled in those countries, as well as assistance (presumably financial) in returning any asylum seeker who decides to return home or whose claim for refugee status is unsuccessful. Both Memoranda of Understanding state that ‘Australia will bear all costs incurred’ under the agreement.49

Funding for the PNG arrangement (officially dubbed the Regional Resettlement Arrangement) was included in the Economic Statement in August 2013:

The total estimated operating cost of the Arrangement is $175 million in 2013-14, « and » $1.1 billion over four years, partially funded from a $423 million reduction in the operating costs of the onshore detention network (a net impact of $632 million) over the four years to 2016-17. Capital costs of $194 million are included in 2013-14 to expand Manus Island facilities.

50

Funding for the Nauru arrangement was not specified in the Economic Statement, although in announcing the arrangement Prime Minister Rudd stated that ‘… funds will be made available « and »

45. D Feeney, Second reading speech: Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel « on » Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013; Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel « on » Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013, House of Representatives, Debates, 31 October 2012, p. 8694, accessed 22 August 2013.

46. For more information « on » these Bills see D Weight « and » H Spinks, Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel « on » Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 [ « and » ] Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel « on » Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013, Bills digest, 44, 2012-13, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2012, accessed 22 August 2013.

47. K Rudd (Prime Minister), M Dreyfus (Attorney-General) « and » T Burke (Minister for Immigration « and » Citizenship), Australia « and » Papua New Guinea Regional Resettlement Arrangement, transcript of joint press conference, Brisbane, 19 July 2013, accessed 22 August 2013. 48. K Rudd (Prime Minister) « and » T Burke (Minister for Immigration « and » Citizenship), New arrangement with Nauru

« Government » , transcript of press conference, 6 August 2013, accessed 22 August 2013. 49. Memorandum of Understanding between the « Government » of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea « and » the « Government » of Australia relating to the transfer to, « and » assessment « and » settlement in, Papua New Guinea, of certain persons, « and » related issues, 6 August 2013, accessed 22 August 2013; Memorandum of Understanding between the

Republic of Nauru « and » the Commonwealth of Australia, relating to the transfer to « and » assessment of persons in Nauru, « and » related issues, 3 August 2013, accessed 22 August 2013. 50. Economic Statement, August 2013, op. cit., p. 40.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

12

have been made available through the contingency reserve which will be allocated consistent with the take up of the resettlement arrangements within Nauru. These are fully accounted for in the economic statement yesterday’. 51

Overseas Development Assistance (ODA)

At the time of announcing the PNG Regional Resettlement Agreement, the Prime Minister also made announcements about Australia’s aid commitments to PNG.52 The August 2013 Economic Statement elaborated « on » these announcements, stating that:

The « Government » will provide $420 million over four years of additional ODA to PNG ( « and » additional non-ODA eligible funding of $18 million over four years for law « and » order) … This is in addition to the existing $500 million per annum aid commitment to PNG ($507 million in 2013-14).

53

While this additional ODA for PNG has not been explicitly linked to the announcement of the Regional Resettlement Arrangement, it has been widely interpreted this way.54 However, it is important to note that the projects being funded with the additional money had already been identified as priorities for « Australian » ODA for the future. They are not new commitments; rather their commencement has been brought forward. 55

Onshore detention

Figures « on » total expenses for community « and » detention services onshore are provided under Program 4.2, Onshore Detention Network. Funding for the onshore detention network has remained fairly stable over the last three years, at around $90 million (see Table 4 below). This stability in ongoing expenses for the onshore detention network can be explained by the fact that the costs associated with the management of asylum seekers who are transferred from Christmas Island to the mainland continue to be met from the budget for Program 4.3 Offshore Asylum Seeker Management. It is also important to note that expenditure « on » onshore detention services is not exclusively for asylum seekers. The onshore immigration detention population also includes other detainees such as visa overstayers « and » other unlawful non-citizens awaiting deportation.

51. K Rudd (Prime Minister), Transcript of joint press conference, 3 August 2013, accessed 22 August 2013. 52. K Rudd (Prime Minister), Transcript of joint press conference, 19 July 2013, accessed 22 August 2013. 53. Economic Statement, August 2013, op. cit., p. 4113. 54. For example see J Hayward-Jones, ‘Resettlement deal a big gamble for O’Neill’, The « Australian » Financial Review,

24 July 2013, p. 47, accessed 22 August 2013. 55. For further information see R Tomar, ‘Regional Resettlement Arrangement (RSA) « and » « Australian » aid to Papua New Guinea’, FlagPost weblog, 26 July 2013, accessed 22 August 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

13

Table 4: DIAC Funding for Program 4.2—Onshore Detention Network, 2008-09 to 2013-14

2008-09

(revised budget) $m

2009-10 (revised budget) $m

2010-11 (revised budget) $m

2011-12 (revised budget) $m

2012-13 (revised budget) $m

2013-14 (Budget

estimate) $m

Administered expenses

Community « and » detention services

74.1 60.6 56.6 60.4 59.2 60.2

Departmental expenses 45.6 33.4 28.4 26.1 26.9 26.8

Total administered « and » departmental expenses for Program 4.2 Onshore Detention Network

137.2 100.7 88.5 90.1 89.9 90.9

Source: Immigration « and » Citizenship Portfolio budget statements 2008-09 onwards.

Capital expenditure « on » detention centres

In addition to ongoing running costs associated with immigration detention, significant funding has been provided over the last several years in capital costs associated with the immigration detention network. Capital expenditure « on » detention facilities for the period 2007-08 to 2009-10 is shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Capital expenditure « on » immigration detention facilities, 2007-08 to 2009-10

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Capital expenditure ($m) 328.3 12.1 46.2

Source: Immigration « and » Citizenship portfolio, Additional Estimates February 201156

The 2010-11 Budget allocated a further $202 million over five years to increase capacity, maintain « and » upgrade service delivery « and » upgrade infrastructure in both onshore « and » offshore immigration detention facilities including capital funding for several immigration detention facilities.57 In the 2011-12 Budget an additional $24 million was allocated over two years in capital measures for two new detention facilities. This comprised $14.8 million for works to a defence facility at Pontville, Tasmania, « and » $9.2 million for works to a facility at Wickham Point in the Northern Territory. 58 A

56. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Immigration « and » Citizenship Portfolio, Additional Budget Estimates 2011-12, 21 February 2011, Question 255, accessed 22 August 2013. The $328.3 million in 2007-08 includes a $317.069 million transfer of the Christmas Island Detention Centre from the Department of Finance « and » Deregulation to DIAC, « on » completion of construction. 57. Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2010-11, op. cit., p. 326. 58. « Australian » « Government » , Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2011-12, p. 346, accessed 22 August 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

14

further $15.7 million in capital funding was allocated in 2012-13 to expand the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation facility.59

Once again, these costs cannot be attributed solely to asylum seekers arriving by boat, as the detention network is utilised more broadly. However, much of the increase in capital expenditure « on » detention centres can reasonably be attributed to boat « arrivals » , as a number of new centres have been opened « and » announced in the last three years specifically to ease the pressure « on » the detention network created by large numbers of unauthorised boat « arrivals » . These include the facilities at Wickham Point « and » Pontville, discussed above, as well as facilities at Scherger in Queensland, Yongah Hill « and » Leonora in Western Australia, « and » Inverbrackie in South Australia.60

Security assessments

All asylum seekers 16 years or over who are found to engage Australia’s protection obligations must undergo a security assessment before they are granted a visa.61 This assessment is conducted by the « Australian » Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) as one of several types of security assessments of individuals undertaken by the agency. All of ASIO’s funding is reported under a single program, « and » for security reasons ASIO does not publicly comment « on » resources available for specific activities, so it is not possible to determine how much this « activity » costs. However, information « on » the number of security assessments ASIO completed for IMAs is publicly available for the years 2008-09 to 2011-12, « and » is set out in Table 6. 62

Table 6: ASIO security assessments by type 2008-09 to 2011-12

IMA Other visa

applicant

Counter-terrorism

Personnel IMA as a

% of total

2008-09 207 59 677 65 119 21 699 0.14

2009-10 2822 35 616 98 086 22 343 1.78

2010-11 3586 30 810 109 166 31 099 2.05

2011-12 4760 19 337 153 644 27 801 2.32

59. Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2013-14, op. cit., p. 294. 60. C Bowen (Minister for Immigration « and » Citizenship), « Government » announces new « and » expanded immigration detention accommodation, media release, 3 March 2011, accessed 22 August 2013; C Bowen (Minister for Immigration « and » Citizenship), New short-term detention centre in Tasmania, media release, 5 April 2011, accessed 3

September 2013. For further detail « on » immigration detention facilities see J Phillips « and » H Spinks, Immigration detention in Australia, Background note, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2013, accessed 3 September 2013. 61. Security assessments are generally not conducted « on » persons under the age of 16: Joint Select Committee « on » Australia’s Immigration Detention Network, Official committee Hansard, 22 November 2011, p. 34, accessed

21 March 2013; Joint Select Committee « on » Australia’s Immigration Detention Network, Answers to questions « on » notice received by the « Australian » Security Intelligence Organisation « on » 16 December 2011, item 315, accessed 8 August 2013. Prior to December 2010, ASIO completed security assessments of all IMAs: Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Attorney-General’s Portfolio, Budget Estimates 2011-12, 25 May 2011, Question 91, accessed 21 March 2013. 62. In 2009-10, ASIO reported separate figures for the number of security assessments for IMAs, other onshore

protection « and » offshore protection/refugee applicants in its annual report to Parliament for the first time.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

15

Source: ASIO Annual reports to Parliament 2009-10 to 2011-12 « and » Budget Estimates 2011-1263

The number of security assessments completed for IMAs has increased each year from 2008-09 to 2011-12 (despite changes implemented in 2010 « and » 2011 that reduced the proportion of IMAs assessed from 100 per cent to around 10-15 per cent) but has remained a small percentage of the overall security assessment caseload.64 However, because « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » typically reach Australia without any formal identification, these assessments tend to be more complex « and » entail more extensive investigation than others. 65 This means that relatively small increases to the IMA caseload have the potential to disproportionately affect the overall resources available for ASIO’s security assessment function.

The « Government » has allocated $8.8 million from 2012-13 to 2015-16 to establish an Independent Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments.66 The Reviewer commenced in December 2012 « and » is responsible for reviewing decisions by ASIO to issue adverse security assessments (ASAs) of individuals who have been found to engage Australia’s protection obligations « and » making recommendations to the Director-General of Security.67

Other costs

In addition to the funding outlined above, there are numerous other costs associated with detaining « and » processing asylum seekers who arrive by boat, which are impossible to quantify. These would include such things as the costs to police services associated with responding to incidents at detention centres, « and » the training provided to staff working in the detention network, which may not necessarily be funded out of the detention services budget.

63. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Official committee Hansard, 25 May 2011, p. 112, accessed 21 March 2013. 64. It should be noted that entrants under the offshore humanitarian program also require security assessments, « and » the linking of the onshore « and » offshore humanitarian programs means that, if boat « arrivals » are low, then more visas are

granted under the offshore program. Thus, ASIO would still incur costs associated with security assessments for humanitarian entrants, even if the number of IMAs was zero. For information « on » changes to the process for assessing IMAs, see C Barker, ‘ASIO security assessments of asylum seekers’, FlagPost weblog, 11 June 2013 « and » « Australian » National Audit Office (ANAO), Security assessments of individuals, ANAO Audit Report no. 49, 2011-12, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2012. 65. ANAO, Security assessments of individuals, op. cit., p. 40. 66. W Swan (Treasurer) « and » P Wong (Minister for Finance « and » Deregulation), Mid-year economic « and » fiscal outlook

2012-13, p. 199, accessed 7 August 2013. 67. N Roxon (Attorney-General), Independent Reviewer for Adverse Security Assessments, media release, 16 October 2012, accessed 7 August 2013; N Roxon (Attorney-General), Commencement of Independent Reviewer of

Adverse Security Assessments, media release, 3 December 2012, accessed 7 August 2013. ASAs are issued « on » the basis that a person poses a threat to Australia’s security.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

16

Policing

« Australian » Federal Police

The AFP maintains a community policing presence « on » Christmas Island, « and » is involved in responding to disturbances at immigration detention facilities « on » the island « and » elsewhere in Australia at the request of DIAC or Serco. 68 The number of AFP staff deployed to Christmas Island has varied considerably in accordance with the security situation at the centres at different times. For instance, during March 2011, the number of AFP officers increased temporarily from 32 to 202 in response to a series of violent public order incidents.69 In the six months to February 2013, there were eight to nine officers deployed to Christmas Island for community policing « and » 42-53 « on » short term deployments.70

As is the case with border security, it is necessary for the « Government » to maintain a certain level of capability in its federal police force, which may be deployed in response to any number of matters. Attempting to determine the specific costs to the AFP of providing a policing response at immigration detention facilities is therefore extremely difficult.

Costs incurred by the AFP in relation to investigating « and » prosecuting people « smuggling » « activity » , « and » engaging in « counter » - « people » « smuggling » efforts, are outlined in separate sections of this paper.

State « and » territory police

While the AFP is the first responder for public order incidents at immigration detention facilities « on » Christmas Island, at other facilities it is more likely to be the relevant state or territory police force. Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) « and » exchanges of letters set out the agreed roles of DIAC, AFP « and » local police in each jurisdiction.71 However, little information is publicly available « on » these arrangements, including in relation to funding.

As at 13 March 2012, DIAC had MOUs in place with:

• the Northern Territory Police « and » AFP (commenced in March 2012)

• Tasmania Police « and » AFP (commenced in February 2012) « and »

68. Serco has a contract with DIAC to provide services to people in Australia’s immigration detention centres: DIAC, ‘Detention services provider contracts’, DIAC website, accessed 26 August 2013. 69. Joint Select Committee « on » Australia’s Immigration Detention Network, Official committee Hansard, 6 September 2011, p. 55, accessed 26 August 2013. 70. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answer to Questions « on » Notice, Attorney-General’s

Portfolio, Additional Budget Estimates 2012-13, February 2013, Question 57, accessed 26 August 2013. 71. Joint Select Committee « on » Australia’s Immigration Detention Network, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, DIAC, undated, item 1, Q1-Q224 (Question no. 72), accessed 26 August 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

17

• Victoria Police, for the provision of policing services at Maribyrnong facility (commenced « on » 31 May 2009). 72

Tasmania Police received $1.1 million from the Commonwealth in return for commitments to:

• participate in contingency planning for potential emergencies « and » incidents at the Pontville IDC [immigration detention centre];

• respond to Extraordinary Incidents at Pontville IDC;

• investigate all Tasmanian statutory offences relating to Pontville IDC; « and »

• respond to « and » investigate any Coronial Incident within the Pontville IDC. 73

The MOU with the Northern Territory Police involves $53 million of Commonwealth funding over two years.74

The Commonwealth funding for these agreements appears to come out of DIAC’s Program 4.2, Onshore Detention Network, for which costs are outlined in the ‘Onshore detention’ section of this paper.75

Welfare

Contrary to some popular misconceptions, asylum seekers in detention are not entitled to welfare payments, « and » those who have been determined to be refugees are not entitled to welfare payments beyond those that any « Australian » resident may claim. However, asylum seekers who are released from detention « on » a bridging visa (along with those who have not arrived unauthorised « and » are living in the community while awaiting processing of their claim), may be entitled to some assistance under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme. Additionally, people who have been determined to be refugees are entitled to « government » assistance in order to help them settle in to Australia.76

72. Ibid., Question no. 160. DIAC was approached to provide an update « on » whether any further MOUs had been finalised, but did not provide a response prior to publication. 73. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Immigration « and » Citizenship Portfolio, Budget Estimates 2012-13, 21-22 May 2012, Question no. BE12/0371, accessed

26 August 2013. The time period to which this funding relates is not specified. 74. C Bowen (Minister for Immigration « and » Citizenship) « and » P Henderson (Northern Territory Chief Minister), Immigration MoU signed with Northern Territory « Government » , media release, 12 March 2012, accessed

26 August 2013. 75. The response to a question « on » notice concerning the MOU with Tasmania Police referenced at footnote 73 contains the subheading ‘Program 4.2: Onshore Detention Network’. 76. These entitlements, which are separate to the costs of detaining « and » processing unauthorised boat « arrivals » , are

outlined in further detail in L Buckmaster, « Australian » « Government » assistance to refugees: fact versus fiction, Background note, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, updated 28 September 2012, accessed 23 August 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

18

Legal costs associated with people « smuggling »

The investigation « and » prosecution of people « smuggling » offences, provision of legal aid to those charged « and » detention expenses are another set of costs to « Government » arising from people « smuggling » .

Investigations

The AFP has primary responsibility for people « smuggling » investigations, in cooperation with other Commonwealth, state « and » foreign law enforcement agencies. Funding for investigations into people « smuggling » « and » a range of other Commonwealth crimes is primarily provided under the Crime Operations component of AFP’s Program 1.3, Operations - Policing.77 This allows AFP investigation resources to be directed as required across the various crime types, but means that « spending » « on » people « smuggling » investigations is very difficult to track. The total funding allocated to Program 1.3 for 2013-14 is $273 million.78 Small funding increases over the forward estimates are primarily due to new funding provided for National Anti-Gang Taskforce, offset by the impact of revised measures for people « smuggling » , « and » other savings.79 This indicates that the « Government » expects the resources required for people « smuggling » investigations to decrease over that period.

A specialised People « Smuggling » Strike Team (PSST) was first established in 2000. 80 The AFP currently has PSSTs in Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne « and » Perth. 81 PSSTs comprise investigators, intelligence officers « and » financial analysts; those in Canberra « and » Melbourne also include an officer from DIAC « on » secondment.82 Table 7 sets out the number of AFP members allocated to the PSSTs « and » annual funding from 2009-10.

Table 7: AFP funding « and » staffing of People « Smuggling » Strike Teams

AFP members (September) Funding $m

2009-10 41 7.2

2010-11 71 7.2

2011-12 87 7.2

2012-13 108 7.2

2013-14 Not available 4.7

Sources: Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Attorney-General’s Portfolio83

77. « Australian » Federal Police (AFP), Annual report 2011-12, AFP, Canberra, 2012, p. 47, accessed 29 August 2013. Investigations are also supported by functions funded under programs 1.2 (International Deployments) « and » 1.4 (Close Operations Support). 78. Portfolio budget statements 2013-14: budget paper no. 1.2: Attorney-General’s Portfolio, op. cit., p. 160. 79. Ibid.

80. AFP, ‘People « smuggling » ’, AFP website, accessed 31 August 2013. 81. AFP, Annual report 2011-12, op. cit., p. 52. 82. Ibid.

83. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Attorney-General's Portfolio, Supplementary Estimates 2012-13, 15-16 October 2012, Question 79, accessed 1 September 2013; Senate

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

19

In 2011-12, 67 alleged crew « and » six alleged people « smuggling » organisers were arrested by the AFP.84 In 2010-11 the equivalent figures were 329 « and » one, « and » in 2009-10, 118 « and » three. 85 Investigations into people « smuggling » organisers are more complex « and » resource-intensive than those into crew members. Thus, while there were many more arrests overall in 2010-11 than in 2011-12, this does not necessarily indicate a higher level of resourcing. Figures have not yet been published for 2012-13. However, a direction given to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) in August 2012 may mean that greater resources are devoted to investigations of organisers than crew while it remains in effect.86

« On » 29 August 2013, the AFP conducted raids across four states, resulting in the arrest of five foreign nationals accused of people smuggling.87 It is alleged those arrested were involved in the planning « and » facilitation of up to 132 SIEVs bound for Australia.88

Prosecutions

As at 30 June 2012 there were 152 people « smuggling » prosecutions involving organisers, captains « and » crew before the courts. 89 In contrast, a year earlier there were 304 people « smuggling » prosecutions underway.90

In a reply to a question « on » notice at Senate estimates of 25 May 2012, the CDPP stated that as at 30 April 2012, its costs for the prosecution of people « smuggling » offences in 2011-12 had been $10.91 million.91 In the same answer the CDPP stated it was allocated $8.77 million in 2012-13 for the

Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Attorney-General's Portfolio, Supplementary Estimates 2011-12, 17-18 October 2011, Question 11, accessed 1 September 2013. 84. AFP, Annual report 2011-12, op. cit., p. 4. 85. AFP, Annual report 2010-11, AFP, Canberra, 2011, p. 53, accessed 1 September 2013; AFP, Annual report 2009-10,

AFP, Canberra, 2010, p. 119, accessed 1 September 2013. 86. The direction provides that the CDPP must not institute, carry « on » or continue to carry « on » a prosecution for an offence under section 233C of the Migration Act 1958 against a crew member unless • the person has committed a repeat offence or may be convicted of a repeat offence in the same proceedings

• the person's role in the people « smuggling » venture extended beyond that of a crew member or • a death occurred in relation to the people « smuggling » venture: Attorney-General’s Department (AGD), Director of Public Prosecutions — Attorney-General’s Direction 2012, 27 August 2012, Commonwealth of Australia gazette, GN 35, 5 September 2012, pp. 2318-9, accessed

2 September 2013. 87. AFP, Five arrested in Australia’s largest people « smuggling » strike, media release, 29 August 2013, accessed 29 August 2013. 88. Ibid.

89. Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP), Annual report 2011-12, CDPP, Canberra 2012, p. 76, accessed 28 August 2013. 90. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Attorney-General's Portfolio, Budget 2011-12, 25 May 2011, Question 13, accessed 1 September 2013; CDPP, Annual report 2010-11,

CDPP, Canberra, 2011, p. 84, accessed 2 September 2013. 91. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Attorney-General's Portfolio, Budget 2012-13, 25 May 2012, Question 87, accessed 28 August 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

20

prosecution of people « smuggling » offences.92 This equates to around 9.2 per cent of the agency’s total funding allocation of $95.40 million for 2012-13. 93

A direction was given by the then Attorney-General in August 2012 to limit prosecutions of people « smuggling » crew to instances where the person is a repeat offender or their role extended beyond that of a crew member, or where a death occurred in relation to the people « smuggling » venture.94 Figures are not yet available for 2012-13, but a decrease in prosecutions seems likely while the direction remains in effect, given most prosecutions up to the time it was made were of crew members.95

Legal aid for those charged

The « Government » reimburses state « and » territory legal aid commissions for high cost Commonwealth criminal matters through the Expensive Commonwealth Criminal Cases Fund (ECCCF).

During 2009-10, $0.5 million of the $9.8 million provided under the ECCCF was for people « smuggling » cases.96 In the 2011-12 Budget the « Government » allocated new funding of $28.9 million over three years to the ECCCF for costs incurred by state « and » territory legal aid agencies in the provision of legal assistance in Commonwealth law-related cases, including people « smuggling » cases.97 This funding was comprised of $17.6 million for 2010-11 (which was specifically allocated for people « smuggling » cases), $4.2 million for 2011-12 « and » $7.1 million for 2012-13. 98 The « Government » allocated $10.8 million for the ECCCF for 2013-14. 99

Imprisonment costs

According to the Productivity Commission ‘nationally in 2009-10, the total cost per prisoner per day, comprising net operating expenditure, depreciation, debt servicing fees « and » user cost of capital, was $275’. 100 Thus, based « on » this estimation, it costs approximately $0.5 million to keep a convicted

92. Ibid.

93. « Australian » « Government » , Portfolio budget statements 2012-13: budget paper no. 1.2: Attorney-General’s Portfolio, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2012 p. 423, accessed 1 September 2013. 94. AGD, Director of Public Prosecutions — Attorney-General’s Direction 2012, op. cit. 95. C Barker, The people smugglers’ business model, Research paper, 2, 2012-13, Parliamentary Library, Canberra,

28 February 2013, accessed 2 September 2013. 96. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Attorney-General's Portfolio, Additional Estimates 2010-11 , 22 February 2011, Question 69, accessed 1 September 2013. 97. Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2011-12, op. cit., p. 103. 98. « Australian » « Government » , Portfolio Additional Estimates 2010-11, Attorney-General's Portfolio, 2011, p. 16, accessed

2 September 2013; Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2011-12, op. cit., p. 103. The amount for 2012-13 was increased to $9.9 million in the 2012-13 Budget: « Australian » « Government » , Budget measures: Ministerial statement 2012-13: Stronger regions, stronger nation - Attorney-General, 2012, p. 46, accessed 2 September 2013. 99. « Australian » « Government » , Budget measures: Ministerial statement 2013-14: Stronger regions, stronger nation -

Attorney-General, 2012, p. 23, accessed 2 September 2013. 100. Steering Committee for the Review of « Government » Service Provision 2011, Report « on » « government » services 2011, Productivity Commission, Canberra, 2011, vol. 1, chapter 8, p. 8.24, accessed 1 September 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

21

people smuggler imprisoned in Australia for five years (the main people « smuggling » offences carry mandatory minimum sentences of at least five years' imprisonment).101

When asked at Senate Estimates « on » 22 February 2011 whether any states had raised issues regarding the additional funding for courts « and » prisons to meet the demands from increasing crew prosecutions, the Attorney-General’s Department advised as follows:

New South Wales, Queensland « and » Western Australia have raised funding issues associated with people « smuggling » crew prosecutions. States « and » Territories are funded as part of the distribution of GST revenue for the costs of courts « and » corrections associated with prosecuting « and » imprisoning of people « smuggling » crew. The Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) introduced a new funding model for distributing GST revenue that applies from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2015. Under this model, funding is allocated for justice services based « on » the actual population of a State or Territory rather than the number of federal prisoners within each jurisdiction.

102

« Counter » - « people » « smuggling » activities

In addition to the money spent « on » IMAs as outlined above, the « Government » spends a considerable amount of money « on » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » activities in an attempt to reduce the number of « arrivals » . These areas of expenditure are often considered together but are, in fact, two sides of the same coin—one funding allocation is directed towards preventing people from entering Australia irregularly « and » the other is spent « on » the costs associated with those who continue to arrive, despite such efforts to deter them. These prevention measures are consistent with a layered approach to border protection along what Customs refer to as the ‘border continuum’, which consists of four zones—overseas, the « maritime » zone, the physical border « and » within Australia.103

« Counter » - « people » « smuggling » efforts are shared across several agencies « and » portfolios, « and » details regarding specific activities « and » funding are often far from transparent. This is in part due to the clandestine nature of the activities being targeted, but largely because funding provided in the Budget for « counter » - « people » « smuggling » activities is generally absorbed into broader existing programs. This means it is not possible to track funding « on » a year-to-year basis as it is not reported separately in Portfolio Budget Statements. For these reasons, it is unlikely the total amount spent « on » these activities will ever be publicly known.

Identifiable new funding « on » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » activities committed from the 2009-10 to 2013-14 Budgets is outlined in Table 8, but this should not be considered an exhaustive account of expenditure in this area. Additionally, while funding for these activities is largely directed towards preventing « maritime » people « smuggling » , some (such as funding for airline liaison officers, whose

101. Migration Act 1958, section 236B, accessed 1 September 2013. 102. Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Attorney-General's Portfolio, Additional Estimates 2010-11, 22 February 2011, Question 96, accessed 1 September 2013. 103. See Customs, Annual plan 2012-13, Customs, Canberra, 2012, accessed 3 September 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

22

duties include dealing with people « smuggling » issues, « and » broader regional engagement activities) is also relevant to preventing people « smuggling » by air. 104

104. For information « on » people « smuggling » to Australia by air see C Barker, The people smugglers’ business model, op. cit., pp. 9-10 « and » Migrant « Smuggling » Working Group (MSWG), ‘Migrant « smuggling » by air’, MSWG website.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

23

Table 8: Identifiable new funding for « counter » - « people » « smuggling » activities announced from 2009-10 to 2013-14 Budgets

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Attorney-General’s Department $2.3 million over two years to help countries in

South-East Asia develop « and » improve laws to combat people « smuggling »

Nil $6.7 million over two

years to continue assisting other countries to develop « and » improve laws to combat people « smuggling » , including the expansion of the program to South Asia

Nil Nil

« Australian » Customs « and » Border Protection Service

$4.0 million over two years for a communications campaign aimed at deterring asylum seekers from using people smugglers to reach Australia

$15.1 million to establish new Customs posts in Colombo « and » Kuala Lumpur « and » provide additional officers for the Jakarta post

Nil $3.0 million over two

years to continue the communications campaign in source « and » transit countries

$8.0 million over two years to maintain officers in Sri Lanka, Malaysia « and » Indonesia to coordinate efforts to prevent « and » disrupt « maritime » people « smuggling »

Nil $10.0 million over two

years from 2012-13 to maintain officers in Sri Lanka, Malaysia « and » Indonesia to coordinate efforts to prevent « and » disrupt « maritime » people « smuggling »

$3.6 million for a « counter » - « people » « smuggling » communications campaign(a)

« Australian » Federal Police $31.2 million over four years to establish a

technical investigation unit in Indonesia « and » deploy AFP liaison officers

$24.8 million in 2010-11 to increase the technical « and » operational capacity of the AFP « and »

$10.8 million over two years to continue the deployment of seven officers to Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia,

Nil $3.0 million in 2013-14 to

work with regional law enforcement agencies « on » anti- « smuggling » activities

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

24

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

to Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia « and » Thailand as part of the « Government » ’s response to people smuggling105

regional partners, including support to the Indonesian National Police for patrol « and » surveillance resources « and » assistance to law enforcement agencies in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka « and » Pakistan for proactive disruption activities(a)

Malaysia « and » Thailand

« Australian » Secret Intelligence Service $30.5 million over four years to enhance ASIS’s

intelligence capabilities in response to an increase in « maritime » people « smuggling » to Australia

Nil $14.8 million over two

years to enhance intelligence capabilities as part of the « Government » ’s response to people « smuggling »

Nil Nil

Department of Foreign Affairs « and » Trade

$9.7 million over two years to support increased regional

Nil $9.0 million over two

years to continue existing preventative initiatives,

Nil $4.3 in 2013-14 to continue

existing preventative initiatives

105. A total of $41.6 million was provided over four years for the measure ‘Border protection—combating people « smuggling » - enhancing « Australian » Federal Police « and » regional capability’: « Australian » « Government » , Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2009-10, 2009, p. 93, accessed 13 August 2013. Of that total, $10.4 million was allocated for enhancing PSST capability: Senate Legal « and » Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions « on » Notice, Attorney-General's Portfolio, Supplementary Estimates 2011-12, 17-18 October 2011, Question 11, op. cit.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

25

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

engagement, including under the auspices of the Bali Process « on » People « Smuggling » , Trafficking in Persons « and » Related Transnational Crime (Bali Process)106

including the Ambassador for People « Smuggling » , positions in Jakarta, Colombo, Islamabad « and » Kuala Lumpur « and » Bali Process meetings

Department of Immigration « and » Citizenship

$14.3 million over two years to assist Indonesia with « irregular » « arrivals » intercepted there « and » build the capacity of Indonesian immigration authorities

$16.4 million over two years towards a range of measures to respond to « irregular » migration throughout Asia, including deployment of officers to Jakarta, Hanoi, Colombo, Kuala Lumpur « and » Dubai

$8.9 million over four years for intelligence « and »

$32.9 million over four years to continue assisting Indonesia

$33.3 million over three years for measures to strengthen cooperation with countries in South-East Asia « and » the Pacific to respond to « irregular » migration

$5.2 million over four years towards the establishment of a Regional Support Office (under the Bali Process Regional Cooperation Framework) 107(a)

$5.0 million in 2012-13 for the measure ‘Combatting People « Smuggling » - Addressing

$11.3 million over two years to enhance engagement with, « and » provide training « and » technical assistance to, regional immigration agencies to help them detect « and » disrupt « irregular » migration throughout the region

$10.0 million in 2012-13 for regional capacity building to provide protection for asylum seekers

$3.6 million over two years from 2012-13 for domestic « and » international communications campaigns about Australia’s immigration policy as part of the « Government » ’s response to people « smuggling »

$1.9 million in 2013-14 to build capacity « and » capabilities in the Gulf « and » Middle East region with the aim of reducing « irregular » onward movement to Australia

$65.8 million over four years to improve

106. Information « on » the Bali Process « on » People « Smuggling » , Trafficking in Persons « and » Related Transnational Crime (Bali Process), including meeting outcomes, is available « on » its website. 107. For information about the Regional Support Office, see Bali Process, ‘Regional Support Office’, information sheet, Bali Process website, accessed 30 August 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

26

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

compliance support, including additional offshore compliance officers « and » airline liaison officers

« irregular » migration in the region’ (no description of the measure is provided)(a)

« and » displaced persons(b)

engagement with origin « and » transit countries to reduce « irregular » migration to Australia, including additional humanitarian assistance to displaced populations, border control « and » immigration management capacity building « and » assistance strengthening legal frameworks against people « smuggling »

$1.9 million in 2012-13 for « counter » - « people » « smuggling » communications(a)

(a) Portfolio additional estimates (b) Portfolio supplementary estimates Sources: Budget measures: budget paper no. 2, 2009-10 to 2013-14; Portfolio supplementary estimates statements for the Attorney-General’s, Foreign Affairs « and » Trade « and » Immigration « and » Citizenship portfolios, 2009-10 to 2012-13; Portfolio additional estimates statements for the Attorney-General’s, Foreign Affairs « and » Trade « and » Immigration « and » Citizenship portfolios, 2009-10 to 2012-13; Portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements for the Attorney-General’s, Foreign Affairs « and » Trade « and » Immigration « and » Citizenship portfolios, 2009-10 to 2012-13.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

27

Additional measures identified in the Economic Statement released in August 2013 include:

• $51.1 million for DIAC over two years for a capacity building program in Indonesia

• $5.0 million for Customs « and » $7.0 million for DIAC in 2013-14 for a communication campaign related to the Papua New Guinea Regional Resettlement Arrangement « and »

• an unspecified amount towards enhancing people « smuggling » operational capabilities in Indonesia from within the AFP’s existing funding.108

Successive « Australian » governments have recognised the value of investing in international cooperation, capacity building « and » other counter-measures as part of multi-layered approach to people « smuggling » —an approach also endorsed by the Expert Panel « on » Asylum Seekers in its 2012 report.109 While « spending » « on » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » activities has been significant, the amounts identified above are modest compared to the costs associated with interception, processing « and » detention costs detailed elsewhere in this paper.

While the impact of preventative actions can be difficult to quantify, information « on » the number of successful disruptions « and » interceptions carried out by Indonesian, Malaysian « and » Sri Lankan authorities in recent years—hundreds in Indonesia alone—indicates that funding directed to counter-measures is providing results.110

Conclusion

It is clear that the costs associated with IMAs, as well as « counter » - « people » « smuggling » efforts, are significant, « and » have increased considerably in recent years. However, it is impossible to place an exact figure « on » such costs, as « spending » in this area is rarely separated out from « spending » « on » other

associated activities.

While most of the relevant programs do not exclusively target IMAs, it is likely a significant proportion of expenditure would currently be targeted at this area. Certainly recent dramatic increases in funding coincide with significant increases in « arrivals » , suggesting this is the case. Yet it remains impossible to know for certain. No « government » has ever provided a total figure, across all programs « and » all agencies, showing what it costs in any given year to intercept, detain « and » process

108. Economic statement, August 2013, op. cit., pp. 56-65. The domestic component of the By boat, no visa advertising campaign (led by DIAC) had a notional budget of up to $30 million as at 1 August 2013; the component targeting source « and » transit countries will draw « on » funding already available for communications relating to the Report of the Expert Panel « on » Asylum Seekers, supplemented by the $5.0 million identified above: I McPhee, ‘ « Government » advertising - the By boat, no visa advertising campaign’ (letter to N Xenophon), 1 August 2013, accessed 12 August 2013. 109. Report of the Expert Panel « on » Asylum Seekers, op. cit., p. 55. 110. AFP’s 2009-10 Annual Report indicates that regional partnerships with these three countries conducted 192

disruptions involving more than 5,100 people bound for Australia in the previous 18 months, while the Minister for Home Affairs stated in July 2012 that the Indonesian National Police had disrupted around 300 boats ‘in the last few years’: AFP, Annual report 2009-10, op. cit., p. 39; J Clare (Minister for Home Affairs), Transcript of interview with Fran Kelly, media release, 4 July 2012, accessed 13 August 2013.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

28

IMAs. Further, while this paper has focused « on » direct costs, there is also an opportunity cost associated with directing significant resources towards dealing with IMAs. For example, while dealing with people « smuggling » remains a high operational priority for the AFP, less resources are available to deal with other criminal threats, « and » where BPC resources are diverted to deal with IMAs, this comes at a cost to patrol « and » surveillance activities elsewhere.

However, while the full extent of expenditure in this area may never be known, this attempt to identify relevant expenditure reveals that the costs must clearly run into billions of dollars over time. Indeed, funding for Offshore Asylum Seeker Management in DIAC is estimated at $2.9 billion for 2013-14 alone. Despite the significant funding which has been provided in recent years for « counter » - « people » « smuggling » activities « and » deterrence measures, the costs associated with the interception, detention « and » processing of « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » remain high.

« Australian » « Government » « spending » « on » « irregular » « maritime » « arrivals » « and » « counter » - « people » « smuggling » « activity »

29

© Commonwealth of Australia

Creative Commons

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, « and » to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo « and » front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

In essence, you are free to copy « and » communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author « and » abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name « and » No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner « and » permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence « and » any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

This work has been prepared to support the work of the « Australian » Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.

Feedback is welcome « and » may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au. Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators « and » Members « and » their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.