Mr RANDALL (1:02 PM) —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the committee’s report entitled Detention centre contracts: review of Audit report No. 1, 2005-2006, management of the detention centre contracts—part B, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

Mr RANDALL —On 7 July 2005, the Australian National Audit Office, ANAO, released Audit report No. 1 2005-06: Management of the detention centre contracts—part B. This was the second of a three-part assessment of the management by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, DIMIA, of detention centre contracts. The current contract with the service provider Global Solutions Ltd, GSL, was the focus of the second assessment. The committee commends the ANAO’s rigorous and detailed work in conducting this audit and awaits with interest the final report in this series. The committee considers that the inherent vulnerability of the detainee population means that it is essential there be careful monitoring of how DIMIA is managing its detention function. The tabling of Audit report No. 1 2005-06 provided the committee with the opportunity to undertake a focused examination of certain aspects of DIMIA’s detention centre contract management.

As members will be aware, DIMIA has come under intense scrutiny this year. Various independent reports and internal reviews have been undertaken into aspects of the department’s immigration detention function. The committee did not wish to duplicate the work of wider inquiries and has not examined Australia’s mandatory detention policy, arrangements for offshore processing or the lawful detainment or otherwise of individuals. The committee’s review focused on certain key issues identified by the ANAO in Audit report No. 1 2005-06 and the action that DIMIA has taken in response to the ANAO’s recommendations. The ANAO made four recommendations for improvement in key areas relating to the detention function: insurance, liability and indemnity; planning, performance information and monitoring arrangements; financial reporting; and the management of Commonwealth equipment and assets.

However, the committee could not consider Audit report No. 1 2005-06 in isolation. The release of the report was followed a week later by the release of the Palmer report, Inquiry into the circumstances of the immigration detention of Cornelia Rau, and the Comrie report in October. Many of the problems identified by the ANAO in its report in relation to the provision of services to detainees, contract management and performance monitoring arrangements were similarly highlighted as problem areas in the Palmer report. The committee held a public hearing on 10 October 2005, with representatives from the ANAO and DIMIA appearing. In evidence to the committee, DIMIA advised that the implementation of the recommendations of the Palmer report of the Inquiry into the circumstances of the immigration detention of Cornelia Rau—also known as the Palmer implementation plan—also included the department’s proposed action to address the ANAO’s recommendations.

The ANAO identified a number of problems with DIMIA’s management of the detention centre contract at the time of review. A recurrent criticism throughout Audit report No. 1 2005-06 is that the standards and performance measures for monitoring GSL’s performance lacked clarity and consistency, which compromised, in ANAO’s view, DIMIA’s ability to monitor GSL and subcontractor performance. The department was initially reluctant to accept this criticism. However, it has since conceded that certain improvements may be possible in this area. The committee shares the ANAO’s view that the nature and complexity of the detention services environment warrants a more proactive approach to performance monitoring to ensure that detainees’ needs are met, there is some degree of quality assurance in the delivery of detention services and agency responsibilities are met.

Linked to this, and of concern to the committee, was the ANAO’s finding that there is ‘insufficient information about the quality of services being delivered and their costs to allow a value-for-money calculation’. It was troubling that DIMIA could not demonstrate whether or not increased investments in contract administration were producing greater levels of operating efficiencies. At an annual cost of $90 million, plus overheads and administrative costs, and with an additional $230 million committed over the course of five years to the Palmer implementation plan, the committee considers it crucial to ensure that adequate financial reporting and measures— (Time expired)

Mr Randall —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the balance of my statement.

Leave granted.