Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important report. It was undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, and it was to consider the facilities, services and transparency of immigration detention facilities in Australia.

Obviously our immigration detention facilities have a very important role to play in Australia in terms of making sure that people are secure while all sorts of inquiries are made; perhaps about their identity or where they are kept pending being sent out of the country. You have such a variety of detainees. At one end of the continuum you might have people, who may include women and children, who arrived unauthorised at Ashmore Reef for example, and then go to Christmas Island where they are kept in mandatory detention while their identity, security and health status is checked. At the other end of the continuum you of course have people who came out to Australia on visas and who, as non-Australian citizens, offended seriously in Australia and may have served prison terms. At the end of those prison terms these people are kept in detention until they are able to be put on a plane to return to their home countries. So this is an important inquiry.

Unfortunately, the inquiry itself did not receive the information, the full cooperation, the sorts of details and data that you would normally expect of such an important inquiry. So in my minority report I pointed out that, with that information often missing, it was very hard to justify or have a depth of data to support the recommendations made. Unfortunately, I joined the committee on 10 November 2008 after most of the evidence and inspections that form the basis of all three reports had been taken. I was not able to question those submissions or to visit most of the facilities that were the subject of the three reports. The committee visited the facilities on Christmas Island prior to the current surge of detainees, which commenced in September 2008, and so its observations on the functioning of the facility are based on its appearance while empty of any detainees and without community or DIAC feedback on the functioning of the facilities or adequacy of services following the arrival of over 1,000 detainees over the following 12 months.

Unfortunately, my several requests to officially visit and inspect Christmas Island facilities since the surge have not been made possible and have not been facilitated by this government. I cannot, then, support any recommendations in relation to the major offshore facility at Christmas Island given the absence of any relevant observation or commentary on the performance of the island detention facilities now in operation. The committee was also not able to obtain a detailed breakdown of the costs associated with the various detention options, except for those at the Christmas Island secure facility. Neither the costs of the transit accommodation available in the capital cities nor the community detention options were provided to the committee despite requests for that data—very earnest and serious requests. This makes a meaningful discussion of the viability, comparisons, efficiency or alternatives to various facilities very difficult. No data was supplied to the committee about any security breaches—for example, escapes from detention facilities—and yet the committee made recommendations about the appropriateness and adequacy of the security infrastructure itself. So, clearly, the data about security breaches was essential for a reasoned debate about the adequacy or performance of different physical infrastructure. We are aware of this anecdotally. I provided some data on people literally going over the wall at Maribyrnong and changes then being made to the infrastructure, but that information was not made available officially to the committee.

We also have recommendations 6 and 8, which refer to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s service delivery model and the Immigration Detention Standards or their current equivalent. The ANAO is called upon to thoroughly review detention facilities with these models in mind. I hope the ANAO has better luck than the committee, because we were not supplied with the Immigration Detention Standards and so were not able to compare the functioning of these facilities with the service delivery model, which apparently does exist. One excuse that was given was that there were tenders in process. Quite clearly, being aware of a detention standard model does not interfere with competitive neutrality or a process of tendering that in fact had been completed some time before. So that was a great disappointment. The data and inquiry methodology were missing, which led to problems associated with not being able to genuinely compare and contrast or account for costs and value for money. All of those pieces of data were essential for our report. They were missing, so I was not able to support the recommendations in this report.

On the other hand, let me say that, of course, the priorities, strategies and values underpinning Australian detention centres are of critical importance to our nation in terms of our humanitarian treatment of those who come to Australia unauthorised and whose identity, security and health status then must be quickly and efficiently checked. It is also important that those who have failed to abide by their visa conditions or who have broken the law in Australia are treated humanely but are kept very securely while they are prepared for exit out of our country. Therefore, I was disappointed with the report and with the cooperation that was extended to the committee as it tried to complete this report. I do hope we have more cooperation with our next report, which seeks to look at disability and immigration and visa applications in this country.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to speak today on this report, entitled Immigration detention in Australia: facilities, services and transparency. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I am pleased that the committee took on the challenge of addressing some of the most important issues that remain outstanding in immigration detention in Australia. Those issues are: the criteria that should be applied in determining how long a person should be held in immigration detention; the criteria that should be applied in determining when a person should be released from immigration detention, following health and security checks; options to expand the transparency and visibility of immigration detention centres; the preferred infrastructure options for contemporary immigration detention; and options for the provision of detention services and detention health services across the range of current detention facilities, including immigration detention centres, immigration residential housing, immigration transit accommodation and community detention.

In considering the options for additional community based alternatives to immigration detention, the committee inquired into international experience and the manner in which such alternatives might be utilised in Australia to broaden the options available within the current immigration detention framework. It compared the cost-effectiveness of these alternatives with current options. These considerations formed the terms of reference for the inquiry into immigration detention in Australia.

It is true that the closure of Woomera and Baxter detention centres was to the benefit of detainees and improved the way that Australia treats unlawful noncitizens. However, the mere closure of some facilities did not resolve the ongoing problems of existing facilities or new facilities being built, such as the Christmas Island facility. It did not determine on what basis people should be released from detention and the support that should be provided to those people and their families while applications for visas are considered or arrangements made for their removal. The joint standing committee sought to address those significant issues through this inquiry.

The committee has previously released two reports in relation to this inquiry and has now released the third and final report. The first report dealt with the criteria for release from detention. The second report dealt with the community based alternatives to detention. This final report focuses on the options to expand the transparency and visibility of immigration detention centres, the preferred infrastructure options for contemporary immigration detention and options for the provision of detention services and detention health services across a range of current detention facilities, including all of those that I have already identified.

It is true, as we have already heard from other speakers, that it was difficult in some cases to do a full analysis because of the lack of data that is currently collected. We certainly appreciate the conversations that have been had with DIAC about the need to improve on that data collection and have that data—

Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was also a product of arbitrarily shortened timelines by the committee.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a need for that data to be made transparent not just to members of this parliament but also to the public and to the many community organisations that support the unlawful non-citizens in this country.

Recommendations 1 to 5 in this report focus on the infrastructure of detention centres. The committee reiterated that the reconstruction of stage 1 of Villawood remains an urgent priority for this committee. Villawood was never a purpose-built facility. It has had extensions and alterations made to the facility over time. Old buildings have been closed off from use and fences put around them. This facility is in desperate need of modernising and adapting to better suit the needs of those detainees.

The committee also recommended the upgrade of the Perth IDC as it has been proposed that it proceed. This is the one facility I did not get to visit with the committee, but I certainly support the committee’s recommendations based on their observations and the evidence given by persons who are involved with that IDC of the need to proceed with that upgrade. But, given the limited lease arrangements, the Australian government, as recommended by the committee, should also examine long-term options with the intent to establish a purpose-built long-term facility.

The committee recommends that detention in immigration residential housing should certainly be used in lieu of detention in immigration detention centres provided that it is feasible, as these facilities are much more suitable to manage a healthy environment for the detainees and would assist in the transition for those detainees from those centres into the community upon release. The committee also recommends that the razor wire and barbed wire fencing be removed from all detention centres and replaced with more appropriate fencing.

We had the opportunity to go to visit a recently built prison in Canberra that I personally thought would be of benefit to committee members who had not previously visited a prison to give us a perspective and see what our detention centres’ facilities and infrastructure are like compared to those of a modern prison. I was certainly surprised to see that our modern prisons have taken a much softer approach to their security. There was no visible barbed wire in the outer perimeter fence; it was actually just a normal perimeter fence that had sensors on it so it could alert security if it were breached. There was no electrification of that fencing; there was no barbed wire on that fencing. In fact, with those security measures—the electrification and wiring—I do not think there was much barbed wiring in the new prison, but any electrified fencing was actually situated at the top along the gutter lines of the properties within the prison and was a lot less visible than what we had seen in every detention centre that we visited—not just Villawood, but even most modern detention facilities such as the North West Point immigration detention centre. In relation to that centre, the new North West Point immigration detention centre, the committee has recommended that all caged walkways, perspex barriers and electrified fencing be removed from the facility and replaced with more appropriate security infrastructure.

When I am asked how to describe that facility, after I attended inspections of the facility with the committee, I had to say that what immediately came to mind was the movie Jurassic Park. The massive perimeter fencing, the electrified wiring going all the way up the external perimeter fencing, the multiple internal perimeter fences in addition to the external one, and the steel framed doors and buildings were all very confronting. I have never felt claustrophobic—I have been down mines and I have been in very small places—but I have to say that while standing in the North West Point immigration detention centre I felt extremely confined. Every door is sealed. There are big, steel framed doors which, we understand, cannot be painted on—they have not been able to find any substance that will stick to that steel so that the facility can have a much softer look. It was quite confronting, and it was an experience to go through that facility knowing that it was a new, modern facility and that is the way we had sought to make this facility look.

The committee observed that the security measures implemented at this detention centre on Christmas Island are, in our view, extreme and inhumane. This is despite the fact that this facility was purpose-built and modern. The committee has recommended that if the centre is to be used on an ongoing basis more permanent measures are required to reduce the internal security to a more appropriate level—some of those are listed in the recommendations. If our new prisons are able to have such an approach then we should certainly be able to provide more appropriate levels of security and fencing for a detention centre than that which currently exists at the North West Point detention centre.

Recommendations (6) to (9) go to the provision of services in detention facilities. Without taking this chamber through the specific recommendations, overall the committee felt strongly about the need to have a full review of the current immigration detention service providers and of the immigration detention facilities within the next three years. It is recommended that this review be conducted by an independent auditor, the Australian National Audit Office. Much work needs to be done to improve the support services that are provided to our detainees in detention centres. This includes mandatory ongoing training for all staff so that they are better trained and are assessed as competent to deal with cultural appropriateness and sensitivity issues, basic counselling skills, first aid, managing conflict through negotiations and to provide appropriate security measures. It is difficult for the staff, we understand that. A number of staff of have come from the prison system and so come with that culture in relation to how they manage the detainees—it is important that we provide an appropriate level of training to support them.

The remaining recommendations deal with greater transparency and visibility. What the committee has recommended is access for the Australian Human Rights Committee—full access for this committee to the detention centres. We have also recommended access for the media. Of course this has to be subject to privacy laws and to the rights of detainees but if we are to have true accountability and true transparency with our detention centres and the way we deal with unlawful non-citizens, we need to make these centres much more open to the public so they can see what is happening. We need to publish the number of detainees who are there and we need to have consistent public media protocols for every detention centre.

In closing, it is pleasing to see that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, has already provided leadership in the area of immigration reform. I believe that the recommendations of the committee provide further opportunity for the minister to make positive changes into the future. This will ensure that Australia focuses not only on the security of the nation but also on our role as a humanitarian nation. I would like to thank the secretariat for all their work in relation to this inquiry and the production of the three reports. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the great work of the chair of the committee, Michael Danby, the member for Melbourne Ports, and also Danna Vale, the member for Hughes.

Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the third and final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration in its inquiry into immigration detention, Immigration detention in Australia: Facilities, services and transparency. I have written a dissent to the report, as I have a number of concerns with it, and I will speak to them now. The first concern is the committee’s repeated failure to adequately address in its reports the issue of the detention of children at immigration detention facilities both in Australia and offshore. The second is the lack of a recommendation in this report regarding the establishment of an immigration detention health review commission. The third is the inadequacy of the committee’s recommendations on improving transparency.

The issue of children being detained in immigration detention facilities has been raised on many occasions. It has not been effectively addressed in the committee’s reports. This report is no exception. According to the latest publicly available Department of Immigration and Citizenship figures, as of 24 July 2009 there were 78 children in immigration detention, only 26 of whom were living in the community on residency determinations, four being held in immigration residential housing and 48 being held in what is described as ‘Alternative temporary detention in the community (Christmas Island) and the mainland’. The notion of ‘alternative temporary detention’ is nowhere defined.

In its submission to the inquiry, the Australian Human Rights Commission raised significant concerns about the detention of children in immigration residential housing and in transit accommodation. The evidence has not been addressed in this or any of the other committee reports. In relation to residential housing, the commission stated:

It is important to recognise that IRH facilities are still closed facilities, and a mix of detainees with different needs, and detention experiences, may all be contained in the same facility.

It goes on:

HREOC has been aware of several cases where children and families have been detained in IRH facilities for a significant period of time.

It goes on:

While the IRH facilities are significantly better than the IDCs, they are still a closed detention facility and, for children and their families, are inappropriate for anything but the briefest of periods.

The commission says it must be made crystal clear that both immigration residential housing and transit accommodation are closed environments. It needs to be made clear that detainees are monitored by guards and they are not able to freely come and go, and that applies to the children.

In this report before us, there are no detailed descriptions of security arrangements in operation at immigration residential housing and transit accommodation. Indeed, a failing of the report is its failure to provide detailed factual descriptions of security and infrastructure in the immigration detention facilities. When information from DIAC regarding security infrastructure was requested by the committee, insufficient time was allowed for its provision before the report was completed. In the end, I am afraid that the committee sacrificed the inclusion of substantive and highly relevant material in order to meet the requirements arbitrarily imposed by reporting time frames that were not related to reality and were too tight to allow important material to be included.

The third report makes mention of the detention of children on Christmas Island. The report records that on 29 May 2009 at what the committee designates as ‘construction camp immigration detention centre’ there were 18 female children and 43 male children detained. The report makes no comment about the suitability of the construction camp for the detention of children. With regard to its consideration of the detention facilities on Christmas Island, the report is, as elsewhere, inadequate in its representation of the concerns of the Australian Human Rights Commission. It does not, for example, include the Human Rights Commission’s opinion:

DIAC classifies the construction camp as ‘alternative temporary detention in the community.’ The Commission is of the view that this is not accurate. The construction camp is not community based accommodation; it is a facility being specifically used as a place of immigration detention.

Also not included is a reference to the commission’s recommendation:

Children should not be held in immigration detention on Christmas Island. However, if DIAC intends to continue this practice, children should be accommodated with their family members in DIAC’s community based accommodation.

The end of the quote is this:

They should not be detained at the construction camp facility, the Phosphate Hill IDC or the new Christmas Island IDC.

While nothing is said of this matter in the majority report, my dissenting report recommends:

Children and their families should not be held in any immigration detention facility either onshore or offshore.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you would recollect that in 2005 the Howard government implemented significant reforms, including reforms to ensure the release of children and their families from immigration detention. This principle was passed by the parliament and introduced into the Migration Act, in accordance with international law:

… a minor shall only be detained as a measure of last resort.

In July 2005 all children and their families were released from immigration detention through a mechanism known as a ‘residence determination’. Current reports that children are now being detained in immigration residential housing for extended periods and that so many children are being held at the construction camp immigration detention centre on Christmas Island are deeply troubling because they seem to indicate a regression, despite the government’s claims that it is strengthening the protection of children. I am concerned that a new tolerance of the detention of children in facilities, euphemistically described as ‘alternative’ and ‘family style’ facilities, is emerging. This tolerance is apparent in the government and the department of immigration and, I believe, is in this committee’s report, which blurs the distinction which had formerly divided incarceration in immigration detention facilities from residence determinations, where people are free to come and go.

The health, particularly the mental health, of immigration detainees is widely recognised as a critical area of concern. The provision of health services is an area in which the department of immigration has been shown repeatedly, and often in the courts, to have failed in its duty of care. The report, in fairness to it, cites a large volume of evidence expressing concern about the adequacy of both physical and mental health services being provided to detainees. Evidence was provided by the community and such authorities as the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Refugee Council of Australia, the New South Wales Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors and the Australia Psychological Society.

In 2005, in a report that was a landmark report and that managed to shock even people who thought themselves unshockable, the Palmer inquiry into the unlawful detention of Cornelia Rau identified serious deficiencies in the immigration department’s provision of health services to detainees. The report concluded:

… the delivery of adequate and appropriate health care for immigration detainees, and their welfare in general, need to be safeguarded by continuous oversight by an independent, external review body …

To achieve this, the Palmer inquiry recommended:

… the Minister for Immigration establish an Immigration Detention Health Review Commission as an independent body under the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s legislation to carry out independent external reviews of health and medical services provided to immigration detainees and of their welfare.

The Palmer inquiry recommended this immigration detention health review commission be empowered:

… to initiate reviews and audits of health care standards and the welfare of detainees.

It said it needed to be:

… appropriately staffed and resourced, with a core of experienced people with relevant skills …

In the course of the committee’s inquiries it was revealed that this major recommendation put forward by Palmer was never implemented. DIAC has confirmed that a decision was instead made to establish the Detention Health Advisory Group. At the inquiry hearings, Professor Harry Minas, the chair of this committee, told the committee that the Detention Health Advisory Group was not set up to discharge the responsibilities of the immigration detention health review commission as recommended by Palmer. Professor Minas advised the committee that DeHAG was only an advisory body. It had no role in monitoring the welfare of detainees and no statutory right of entry to detention facilities. It was not independent; it was not statutory; it could not gain access as a right. Professor Minas told the committee that the Palmer recommendation:

… has not been implemented and it is our—

DeHAG’s—

view that such a body remains essential.

When the Commonwealth Ombudsman was questioned about the fact that his office had not taken up the role as intended by Palmer, he told the committee that he had at the time expressed concerns about the capacity of his office to undertake that role. However, in testimony before the committee he added:

… if this Committee or the government proposes that a function of that kind should be located in the Ombudsman’s office then I will take a very open minded view of the need for the function and how it can be sensibly located within the office.

Unfortunately, despite the failure of the implementation of Palmer, despite the openness of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to re-examine the situation and despite the copious evidence provided in the committee report about the ongoing problems in the delivery of health services, the committee chose not to recommend that the Palmer recommendation be implemented.

One of the problems with governments is that there is a deep trench between the intention to act and the implementation of action. Had it been known before this committee’s hearings, and especially after the Palmer report was originally brought down, that a fundamental recommendation had not been implemented by bureaucratic agreement, there would have been outrage. I express that outrage now. I believe that the Australian government should redress past failings by implementing Palmer recommendation 6.11 and establishing an immigration detention health committee.

Finally, regarding transparency, I reiterate the view articulated in the dissenting report to the committee’s first report presented by me, Dr Alan Eggleston and Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. Judicial review of detention decisions is the only reliable mechanism for ensuring independent and effective oversight of detention decisions. There is one thing that the sad history of detention of people seeking refuge in this country has demonstrated: if you create closed institutions and you do not subject them to external scrutiny—and external judicial scrutiny—then inevitably abuses will arise. I am concerned that we have ameliorated the situation significantly but have still left the fundamental conditions under which it is possible for abuses to arise and to go unchecked.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration’s third report of the inquiry into detention in this country—Immigration detention in Australia: Facilities, services and transparencycan I say from the outset that I certainly acknowledge and respect the sincerity and passion that the member for Kooyong speaks with in respect of this matter. Can I also place on the record my appreciation to the chair of the committee, the member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Danby, and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, as deputy chair of the committee, for your leadership role in the work that that committee has done. The very fact that we are now presenting the third report highlights the extensive amount of work that that committee has undertaken and, in turn, the level of commitment that the committee has put into its work evidenced by the sheer fact that these three reports contain recommendations on a whole raft of measures.

I suppose it also reflects the substantial problems that were inherited by the Rudd government when it came to office with respect to the matter and manner in which we dealt with refugees in this country and in particular the manner in which we managed our detention facilities. What I am pleased to say as a member of that committee, however, is that the minister, Senator Chris Evans, has in fact responded to both the issues that the Rudd government inherited and the recommendations of all three reports. He has already put into place a number of steps, made a number of policy announcements and proposed pieces of legislation that go a long way to meeting what we the members of the committee believe would be the appropriate way of dealing with refugees in this country.

I want to talk about some of the changes that we have seen, changes that started with the announcement on 29 July by the minister of the new policy with respect to immigration in this country. Within that policy there are some seven values that the minister has adopted. We know that the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 and the Migration Amendment (Immigration Detention Reform) Bill 2009 are currently before the parliament. But it goes further, and I want to speak specifically to some of the recommendations contained in the third report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, bearing in mind that there were some 11 recommendations. I will not go to all of them, as I am aware that other members already have. Recommendation 1 says:

The Committee reiterates that reconstruction of Stage 1 at Villawood remains urgent and a priority of the Committee.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship has committed a total of $7 million to undertake urgent interim works at Villawood: early works to improve the conditions in the high-care unit, which is the old management support unit in stage 3, and reduce the extent of razor wire and minimise the impact of palisade fences in stage 1, which have already been completed. I welcome that. Further works, including the living room and office extension to the stage 3 higher care unit, improvements to the high-security stage 1 accommodation, and realignment and a reduction of fences in stages 2 and 3 have begun and are all scheduled for completion by November 2009. These projects will improve the operation of the facility pending the completion of the longer term redevelopment. The government, in its 2009-10 budget, provided a further $186.7 million for the redevelopment of the Villawood centre. This will include the replacement of stage 1. I understand that DIAC, in conjunction with the Department of Finance and Deregulation, is actively managing the project, which is now before the Public Works Committee for their approval.

Having visited that centre, I know that is a huge commitment by the Rudd government towards upgrading those facilities. I certainly share the concern, I am sure, of all other members who did visit that facility that it was totally inappropriate—inappropriate in design; inappropriate in terms of its age; and inappropriate that it was clearly never, ever designed to be a detention centre and had been used for that purpose under obviously some urgent need but in truth was never, ever designed to be used for such a purpose.

Recommendation 2 says:

At the very least, the Committee recommends that the upgrade of the Perth immigration detention centre proceed as proposed.

The refurbishment works at the Perth Immigration Detention Centre have already been completed. The department is considering options for the replacement of the Perth Immigration Detention Centre at the end of its current lease in 2016. Again, having visited that centre, I believe that is the right thing to do. That centre, whilst it was certainly a little bit more modern than Villawood, was, in my view, totally inappropriate for the purpose for which it was being used.

Recommendation 5 says:

The Committee recommends that all razor/barbed wire fencing is removed from all immigration detention centres and replaced with more appropriate fencing.

Razor wire in all centres, except in stage 1 at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, has now been removed and replaced with more appropriate alternatives. I welcome that, as I am sure all other members do. Fifty per cent of the razor wire has been removed from stage 1 at Villawood as part of the improvements announced by Minister Evans in 2008, and stage 1 will be replaced by a purpose designed facility that does not have razor wire, as part of the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre development.

There have also been some improvements in respect of the way people are dealt with once they come to our shores as refugees. I want to quickly talk about some of the other changes that we have seen, changes which have been, as I said from the outset, driven by much of the work of this committee and simultaneously by the change in policy announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on behalf of the Rudd Labor government.

When the Rudd Labor government came to office, I understand there were some 74 persons who had been in detention for two years or more. I understand that, as at 18 August 2009, only 18 people have been in detention for longer than two years. I will just break down the cases of those people who were in detention for over two years and what has happened to them. In March 2008, the minister announced his review, with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, of all 72 clients who had been in detention longer than two years. As at 18 August 2009, of the 72 cases reviewed, all but six had been resolved. Two cases have ongoing processes. Of the 49 people now on a visa pathway, 47 have already been granted permanent or temporary visas. Two are progressing with their permanent immigration checks. Of the 21 on a removal pathway, 19 have already been removed. Only the two removal clients remain in immigration detention centres, and others are in community detention or on bridging visas in the community.

I believe that that says a lot about the change in policy and the change in attitude towards the way asylum seekers are being dealt with in this country. Yes, we have a long way to go. I am sure that all members of the committee would like to have seen a lot more changes already in place. However, as someone who was part of that committee, visited most of the centres we are dealing with and personally spoke with some of the people in detention centres as well as with a number of the agencies that we heard evidence from, it is clear to me that, with all the best intentions in the world, the truth of the matter is that we are quite often dealing with very complex situations and therefore it is simplistic to say that there is a simple solution. There is not. It is our responsibility as a parliament to ensure that whatever policies are in place are the best possible under the circumstances that we are confronted with. I believe that that is what the committee is aiming for. I believe that that is what the minister is aiming for. As a member of the committee, I am pleased with the progress that we are making on this issue. Once again, I thank all of those involved in the work so far and I thank the secretariat for its support of the committee.

Debate (on motion by Mr Broadbent) adjourned.