Department of Immigration and Citizenship

Department of Immigration and Citizenship

Department overview
Formed	30 January 2007; 14 years ago (2007-01-30)[1]
Preceding Department	Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (II)
Dissolved	18 September 2013 (2013-09-18)
Superseding agency	Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Jurisdiction	Commonwealth of Australia
Headquarters	Canberra
Employees	8,811 (April 2013)[2]
Annual budget	A$1.9 billion (2008-09 estimate)[3]
Ministers responsible	[4] [4]
Department executives	Andrew Metcalfe, Secretary (2007-12) Martin Bowles, Acting Secretary (2012-13)[5]
Website	border.gov.au

Previous headquarters of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in Belconnen, Canberra.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) was an Australian government department that existed between January 2007 and September 2013, that was preceded by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and was succeeded by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

Scope[]

Information about the department's functions and/or government funding allocation could be found in the Administrative Arrangements Orders, the annual Portfolio Budget Statements, in the department's annual reports and on the department's website.

According to the Administrative Arrangements Order (AAO) made on 3 December 2007, the department dealt with:^[6]

• Entry, stay and departure arrangements for non-citizens
• Border immigration control
• Arrangements for the settlement of migrants and humanitarian entrants, other than migrant child education
• Citizenship
• Ethnic affairs
• Multicultural affairs

Structure[]

The department was an Australian Public Service department, staffed by officials who were responsible to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.^[1] The secretary of the department was at first Andrew Metcalfe (until 2012), then (acting in the position) Martin Bowles.^[1][7] Bowles was appointed permanent secretary in early 2013.^[8]

Policies and Litigation[]

Citizenship Test[]

The 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 1st 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 and 80% of humanitarian migrants; those struggling to full fill documentation or considered stateless, passed the test.^[9] Individuals not deemed to contribute to the Australian economy were less likely to become an Australian citizen. 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. 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.  Despite the alterations of requirements, the DIAC refused to change the language the information book was published therefore remaining in native English.^[9]

Mandatory sentencing[]

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’. 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 Malaysian Solution[]

The DIAC under the Gillard Government from 2010 to 2013 funded Indonesian refugee programs to limit the number of individuals entering Australia. The Malaysian solution was an agreement between the Australian and Malaysian governments to transfer 800 Australian asylum seekers in return for 4000 processed Malaysian refugees.^[11] However, the Malaysian government were not signatories of the refugee convention resulting in a breach 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]

Multiculturalism[]

The DIAC, define multiculturalism as the mixing of cultures creating cultural diversity “in the same locality, who share the aim of making a home for themselves and their families in a community within a safe, stable and cohesive nation"^[12] The DIAC promotes the integration of cultures through temporary and provisional visa applications. To acquire a visa the DIAC requires the applicant to agree to the Australian values which include accepting freedom of religion, speech, and dignity^[13]. The visa applicant must agree to the rule of law where everyone must be treated equally regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, disability, or any other differentiating characteristic.^[13]

The People of Australia Policy[]

This policy was implemented on the 17^{th of} February 2011 by the Minister of the DIAC, Hon Chris Bowen.^[12] The policy focuses on reporting the various levels of cultural diversity in Australia including the integration of religion and the social and economic benefits and disadvantages of the growing cultural diversity.^[12]

Human Rights[]

BZ and AD V Commonwealth 2011[]

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. 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 regarding the girl's visa applications. However, the families and the girls’ best interests were not taken into consideration. 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].

Stevenovic V Commonwealth 2013 (DIAC)[]

This case involves the human rights commissioner inquiry involving the deportation of Mr Stevanovic in Australia. The plaintiff moved to Australia on the 9th 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 “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 30th of September 2004. The DIAC cancelled Mr Stevanovic'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 Stevanovic'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 recommended 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.

References[]