Add Category
Less than half of the 153 former immigration detainees released in the community after a High Court ruling last year are subject to electronic monitoring and curfews, the Federal Government has revealed.
Curfews and electronic monitoring via ankle bracelet were among the visa conditions the government introduced for the released cohort in laws passed late last year.
They are imposed on the advice of the government's Community Protection Board (CPB), a group of law enforcement set up to review each case and decide on the appropriate conditions applied to each former detainee.
In March, Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil and Immigration Minister Andrew Giles promised greater transparency about how the government was monitoring the group, which included hardened criminals. But it has taken until May for the government to publish the first report.
In the meantime, serious questions about community safety have been raised — particularly how a former detainee alleged to have committed a violent home invasion, leaving a 73-year-old woman bloodied, bruised and unconscious, had his ankle bracelet removed.
The report, published on the day the government successfully argued another immigration case in the High Court, reveals only 76 of the 153 people are wearing electronic ankle bracelets.
Sixty-eight are also subject to curfews, meaning they have to stay at a registered address during specified hours – usually overnight.
The figures are current to April, and show the CPB has met 15 times since it was first established.
Mr Giles said the government had established the CPB, which included current and former border and law enforcement officials, "so that experts can consider all of the evidence and make appropriate independent recommendations to ensure community safety and conformity with the law".
The CPB report argued every one of the 153 people released were being monitored, either through electronic monitoring or mandatory check-ins to local police stations.
The federal opposition has been scathing of the government's management of the cohort, insisting the Immigration Minister should take responsibility for former detainees reoffending – particularly in instances where they have had electronic monitoring devices removed.
In February, Home Affairs officials confirmed the power to change visa conditions rested with the Immigration Minister – but noted he had delegated some of his powers to the Australian Border Force Commissioner.
The CPB report stated the delegation of decision-making powers had been expanded.
"Senior ABF officers at assistant commissioner level and above have been delegated to make [Bridging Visa R] decisions regarding these individuals," the report stated.
"Decision-makers carefully consider the board's recommendations, and any other relevant information to determine the visa conditions to be imposed on a visa granted to an individual."
At a press conference on Friday, Mr Giles said the board had been established "so that experts can consider all of the evidence and make appropriate, independent recommendations".
Acting ABF Commissioner Kaylene Dale said ABF delegates made their decisions on the advice of the CPB.
"Their advice, along with that of senior public servants, helps determine the most appropriate course of action for each individual," she said.
"The board [considers] all of the circumstances in relation to each individual, including their migration history, their criminal history, any medical history that might be appropriate, their behaviour in corrections or detention previously."
The said the report offered more questions than answers.
Shadow Immigration Minister Dan Tehan accused Mr Giles of a "dereliction of duty" and failing to "protect" the community, and demanded the minister explain why he had delegated oversight of these visas to departmental officials.
"The transparency we're not getting is for anyone to take individual responsibility," he said.
"We have seen once again the immigration minister hide behind a board, hide behind a delegate.
"What we are seeing from the immigration minister is that he is more worried about protecting himself than he is about protecting the Australian people and that is damning."