Abolishing free legal advice to asylum seekers — who really pays?

Parliament house flag post

Abolishing free legal advice to asylum seekers — who really pays?

Posted 27/11/2013 by Elibritt Karlsen

One week before the 2013 federal election, the Coalition announced that, if elected, it would no longer provide funding for free legal advice to asylum seekers who have arrived without a valid visa. The primary concern for the Coalition was clearly the increasing cost of providing this service. However, one month prior to the Coalition’s announcement, the Government had entered into a regional resettlement arrangement with Papua New Guinea which meant all future boat arrivals would be processed abroad with no access to the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme (IAAAS). Nonetheless, there are estimated to be in excess of 30,000 asylum seekers in Australia that will be affected by this proposed change.

Government funding to assist asylum seekers with the protection visa application process became formalised in the early 1990s when the Migration Act 1958 was radically overhauled to introduce a highly codified and regulatory framework to the visa decision making process. Consequently, the Government began providing free legal assistance to enable asylum seekers in hardship with strong claims for asylum to present their claims more effectively.

By the mid the 1990s the Application Assistance Scheme (AAS) was costing the government around $1.6 million a year and a parallel scheme had emerged—the Immigration Advisory Services Scheme (IASS), which provided annual grant funds of $0.3 million to five community agencies to provide free immigration advice to the most disadvantaged applicants in the community.

In 1996 the Department conducted a review into the IASS. It found that the scheme reduced the proportion of poorly prepared and inappropriate applications being submitted. The review also recommended the two schemes be incorporated to provide administrative efficiencies. Thus in July 1997, the IAAAS was created by the Howard Government with an annual budget of close to $2 million. Other than fluctuations in funding to meet increased demand (as shown in the table below), the IAAAS eligibility criteria has changed very little since its inception nearly 20 years ago.

The new scheme drew a distinction between application assistance and immigration advice. Application assistance involved assistance to prepare, lodge and present applications for visas and to make applications for merits review. Application assistance was available to all protection visa applicants in detention, and asylum seekers residing in the community with cases of merit who were experiencing financial hardship or were suffering torture and trauma.

Immigration advice included advice to people wanting to prepare and lodge their own visa applications, advice about visa conditions and sponsorship, and advice about departmental procedures. It also included assistance with the preparation of supporting documentation.

According to the Coalition’s pre-election policy document, asylum seekers who have arrived in Australia without a visa (or who do so in the future) will instead be provided with written instructions in multiple languages that will explain the application and assessment process. Interpreters will be provided and Departmental staff will be available to answer questions about the process. Alternatively they can independently pay for their own legal advice.

A number of community legal centres have been critical of the Coalition’s policy announcement. They have emphasised that asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable because they are likely to face considerable challenges in presenting comprehensive and cohesive claims without assistance. They claim that the involvement of lawyers significantly improves the quality and efficiency of the decision making process and that the change may end up costing the Government more in the long term as there will be longer delays in the decision making process and more appeals to the courts.

To this end, it is significant to note that the Coalition has also announced that they would consider removing appeals to the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and implementing a non-statutory assessment and review process, though this is yet to occur. Nonetheless, the RRT Legal Advice Scheme has been discontinued. This was a Commonwealth Government funded scheme which provided legal advice to unrepresented asylum seekers in NSW who were seeking judicial review of an RRT decision. According to the President of the NSW Bar Association, the decision to abolish the scheme will result in a shifting of costs to an already under-resourced judiciary because it will significantly increase the number of self-represented litigants, which will result in the Federal Circuit Court facing more appeals and increased delays.

Financial YearCost ($million)
1997—19981.9
1998—19991.9
1999—20001.9
2000—200110.8
2001—20026.6
2002—20031.3
2003—20041.5
2004—2005N/A
2005—20062.2
2006—20072.2
2007—20082.2
2008—20093.3
2009—201011.8
2010—201120.9
2011—201222.6
2012—201328.4


Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print

FlagPost

Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament


Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice

Archive

Syndication

Tagcloud

immigration refugees elections taxation asylum Parliament criminal law election results Australian Bureau of Statistics social security disability citizenship Indigenous Australians political parties United Kingdom UK Parliament Census statistics banking early childhood education Middle East Australian foreign policy OECD Australian Electoral Commission voting mental health Employment military history by-election election timetable China; Economic policy; Southeast Asia; Africa housing Speaker; House of Representatives; Parliament Productivity Defence income management asylum seekers High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title Senate ACT Indigenous education Norfolk Island External Territories leadership aid Papua New Guinea emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding Electoral reform politics refugees immigration asylum Canada procurement Australian Public Service firearms Indigenous health constitution High Court e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament women 2015 International Women's Day public policy ABS Population Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade skilled migration Private health insurance Medicare Financial sector EU national security fuel China soft power education violence against women domestic violence Fiji India Disability Support Pension disability employment welfare reform Tasmania Antarctica China Diplomacy Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency Sport ASADA Federal Court WADA ADRV by-elections state and territories terrorism terrorist groups Bills corruption anti-corruption integrity fraud bribery transparency corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform science innovation research and development transport standards Afghanistan Australian Defence Force NATO United States social media Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism higher education Higher Education Loan Program HECS welfare policy pensions social services welfare ASIO Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Australian Secret Intelligence Service intelligence community Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 sexual abuse online grooming sexual assault of minors labour force workers

Show all
Show less
Back to top