Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document


Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

Notice given 21 July 2003

1642  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs—With reference to Migration Series Instruction No. 371 titled, ‘Alternative Places of Detention’, dated 2 December 2002:

(1) How many ‘unlawful non-citizens’ are currently accommodated in alternative places of detention, in each of the following categories: (a) residential housing projects; (b) hospitals/nursing homes; (c) mental health facilities; (d) foster carer homes; (e) hotels/motels; and (f) community care facilities.

(2) Can details be provided of the general considerations or circumstances behind the decisions to place people in each of these alternative places of detention, including the decisions to place people in alternative places of detention other than the Woomera Housing Project.

(3) Can data be provided in respect of people in alternative places of detention, to show in each case: (a) gender; (b) age; (c) familial relationship grouping; (d) state; (e) duration in alternative places of detention to date; and (f) whether the detention was part- or full-time.

(4) How many instances have there been of women and children being housed full-time in alternative places of detention and fathers held in immigration detention centres being permitted to join them on a full- or part-time basis.

(5) On how many occasions and for what periods of time has permission been given for family members who remain in immigration detention centres to visit family in alternative places of detention.

(6) Can details be provided of what specific ‘places of detention’ have so far been approved by the Minister as alternative places of detention.

(7) How many people have lodged expressions of interest in alternative accommodation but not met the condition of: (a) residential housing places being available; (b) health and character checks being completed and clear; (c) there being no high risk of the detainee absconding; and (d) any operational issues particular to the detainee and/or smooth management of the residential housing placement (RHP).

(8) Can details be provided, by immigration detention centre, of how many people are currently on the ‘discreet list of detainees who have volunteered and are eligible to participate in RHP but are still in detention’.

(9) For each of the following years, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 to date; can data be provided for individual immigration detention centres of how many unaccompanied minors ‘of tender years’ remained or remain in those immigration detention centres.

(10) For each of the following years, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 to date; how many unaccompanied minors older than those in (9) were or are in immigration detention centres.

(11) For each of the following years, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 to date; how many children were or are placed in foster care whose parent or parents were or are held in immigration detention centres.

(12) (a) How many people have chosen to return to detention after placement in alternative accommodation; and (b) can reasons be provided for their return.

(13) Given that paragraph 1.1.7 of the instruction indicates that ‘every effort should be made to enable the placement of women and children in RHP as soon as possible’: (a) what efforts are being made; (b) by month, what percentage of women and children have been housed in alternative accommodation since December 2002; (c) what are the barriers to a greater take-up of the scheme.

(14) What Commonwealth funding is provided for those placed in alternative accommodation for: (a) rent; (b) furniture; (c) food; (d) clothing; (e) footwear; (f) bedding; (g) education; (h) sporting, recreational, and leisure activities; and (i) religious needs.

(15) For each of the categories mentioned in (1) and by state: (a) what was the total cost to the Commonwealth of alternative accommodation in June 2003; and (b) how does this compare with the cost of housing the same number of people in detention. 

(16) What has been the cost per head of accommodating people in the Woomera Housing Project since May 2002.

(17) What is the current status of the Government’s stated intention to extend to Port Augusta and Port Hedland the recent review of the success or otherwise of its objective to ‘enable the placement of women and children in a RHP as soon as possible’.

(18) Can copies be provided of correspondence between the Minister’s office and/or the department and the Port Augusta and Port Hedland councils or mayors with regard to the proposed review extension.

(19) Can copies be provided of correspondence between the Immigration Detention Advisory Group and the Minister’s office and/or the department with regard to safety and duty of care at Woomera Immigration Detention Centre.

(20) When is the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Committee report on children in detention due to be released.

(21) What is the current status of the report.

(22) When was the report received by the Minister.

(23) (a) When was the report sent to the department; (b) for what reason; and (c) if the reason was to ‘correct factual errors’, why has it taken so long to do so.

(24) Will the report be sent to the Attorney General or his department; if so, when and for what purpose.

1643  Senator Allison: To ask the Minister for Health and Ageing—With reference to the Australian Grand Prix Corporation’s application for exemption from the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 , provided in response to an order of the Senate of 14 May 2003:

(1) What evidence was provided by the application in support of the claim in part 2(a) of the application that ‘the 2000 championship was viewed by at least 54 billion people’.

(2) How is this claim of 54 billion viewers reconciled with the fact that the total world population in 2000 was estimated to be just over 6 billion.

(3) Given that the applicant indicates in part 3(b) of the application that, ‘there is no guarantee that a Grand Prix will be staged at a circuit in one year simply because it was held at that circuit in the previous year’: Does the Government understand this to indicate that the Australian Grand Prix Corporation (AGPC) did not have a firm contract to run the event in Melbourne for: (a) 2003 at the time of the 2002 race; and (b) 2004 at the time of the 2003 race.

(4) What evidence did the applicant provide in support of its claim that ‘China, Russia, Bahrain, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Dubai and several other countries are all currently bidding for the rights to host a round of the championship in 2003’.

(5) Did such evidence indicate that each of these countries could have, in time for the 2003 season: (a) negotiated a contract; and (b) built a race track.

(6) If no such evidence was provided, how did the Minister satisfy herself as to the veracity of the claim.

(7) Has an AGPC application been made for an exemption from the Act for the 2003 season; is so, what, if any, were the variations in wording in this application from the previous application.

(8) Has an exemption been granted for the 2004 Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne; if so, on what conditions.