Department of Immigration and Citizenship

The department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) litigated the use of mandatory testing for potential immigrants under the Australian citizenship Amendment Bill 2007. The bill was amended in September 2007 and began operating October 1 of the same year through the implementation of the citizenship test [9]. The test consists of 20 questions testing the individual’s compatibility with Australian values . 60% of questions must be correctly answered for an individual to attain Australian citizenship [9]. Australian multiculturalism is impacted by the implementation of the test as a differing passing rate was found between various ethnic and social groups in society [9]. 97% of skilled migrants passed the test and 80% of humanitarian migrants; those struggling to full-fill documentation or considered stateless[9]. Individuals not deemed to contribute to the Australian economy were less likely to become an Australian citizen[9]. The information booklets provided by the DIAC were written in native English language hence maintaining a physical barrier against individuals where English is the second language[9]. The test was reviewed until the 5th June 2008 which led to research projects undertaken by the department to understand the outcomes of the test[9]. The DIAC altered the citizenship test to offer inclusivity assessing individual’s knowledge on democratic ideologies and practices[9].  Despite the alterations of requirements, the DIAC refused to change the language the information book was published in which remains in native English[9].

Mandatory sentencing of refugees and asylum seekers in detention centres is a method of control used by the Australian government when processing applications. The establishment of the DIAC in 2007 saw the operation of Manu and Christmas island detention centres become abolished[10]. The closure of the detention centres was granted by the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship; Senator Chris Evans, stating this form of detention is a “shameful and wasteful chapter in immigration history”[10]. The DIAC also removed the temporary protection during this time which was previously offered by the Howard government to successful refugees and asylum seekers [10]. The removal of these programs was short lived as the number of individuals seeking asylum surged in 2009 known as ‘boat people’.[10] The introduction of mandatory detention centres was later reimplemented on Nauru and Papua New Guinea for the purpose of housing refugees whilst their applications remained in the processing stage[10].

The DIAC under the Gillard Government from 2010-2013 funded Indonesian refugee programs to limit the number of individuals entering Australia. The Malaysian solution was a proposal from the DIAC to transfer 800 Australian asylum seekers in return for 4000 processed Malaysian refugees[11]. However, the Malaysian government where not signatories of the refugee convention which resulted in the breaching of section 198A of the Migration Act 1958. The High Court of Australia found that the solution had breached the act as Malaysia held no statutory protection regarding the treatment of the asylum seekers[11].

BZ and AD V Commonwealth 2011 involved two 10-year-old girls seeking asylum from China referred to as BZ and AD. The human rights commissioner found that the DIAC had breached several human rights when detaining these girls [14]. The plaintiffs were placed into restricted detention centres despite the less restrictive and punitive measures that were available [14]. BZ and AD were placed into arbitrary detention against their will for unnecessary reasons, therefore breaching the human right to dignity and humanity, [14]. Additionally, the commissioner had found that the girl’s parents were questioned by the DIAC regarding information of the visa applications. However, the families and the girls’ best interests were not taken into consideration [14]. The human right to privacy wasn’t respected by the DIAC due to the excessive questioning, [14]. The Commonwealth refused to provide any compensation to the girls for breaching the fundamental human rights to dignity, humanity and privacy and did not provide a written apology, [14]. However, the minister of Immigration had amended several sections of the ministerial interventions power on the 24 March 2012 including sections “345, 391,417,454, 501 J and 195A” to correct the ability for the government to breach these human rights [14].

This case involves the human rights commissioner inquiry involving the deportation of Mr Stevanovic in Australia. The plaintiff moved to Australia 9^th October 1970 from Serbia with his parents at the age of 3 and a half [15]. Mr Stevenovic was involved in several crimes including the “manufacture of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug conspiracy to manufacture a prohibited drug and taking part in the manufacturing of prohibits drug” [15].  The plaintiff was sentenced to 7 years and 3 months into Australian prison and was released on the 30 of September 2004. The DIAC cancelled Mr Stefanovic’s transnational visa whilst detained therefore, was sent back to Serbia once released. The commissioner’s inquiry found that the DIAC had breached and disregarded the plaintiff’s human right to access their home country. Mr Stefanovic’s’ home country was deemed to be Australia since he was unable to speak Serbian, and had no family in Serbia to live with[15]. The commissioner recommends that the government should pay a $20 000 payment to Mr Stevenovic as well as forming a written apology to correct the breaches of human rights against this plaintiff.