6 December 2011
PDF version [661 KB]
Harriet Spinks, Social Policy Section
Elibritt Karlsen, Law and Bills Digest Section
Nigel Brew, Marty Harris and David Watt, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security Section
Contents
Introduction
Coastal surveillance and interception
Customs
Defence
Detention and processing
Offshore asylum seeker management
Onshore detention
Capital expenditure on detention centres
Security assessments
Other costs
Policing
Welfare
Legal costs associated with people smuggling
Prosecutions
Legal aid for alleged people smugglers
Incarceration of convicted people smugglers
Counter-people smuggling activities
Conclusion
Introduction
There has been much discussion in both the media and political debate in recent times about the substantial and rising costs to the Australian Government of intercepting, detaining and processing asylum seekers arriving by boat. Criticism of these costs has come from many quarters, including refugee advocates and the current federal Opposition. Despite the volume of public comment on this issue, there is no comprehensive, publicly available source of data outlining the precise costs incurred in the interception, detention and processing of asylum seekers who arrive unauthorised by boat.
No Australian government has ever provided a single figure estimate of the total cost of these activities. This is in part because the costs are incurred across a number of agencies and portfolios, but also because costs are incurred across various programs, many of which have broader objectives than the interception of irregular maritime arrivals (IMAs). This means that it is often difficult or impossible to disaggregate these costs.
This background note outlines the various programs and agencies involved in the interception, detention and processing of asylum seekers. In order to paint a more complete picture of the costs associated with people smuggling, and the Government’s efforts to curb it, the paper also examines the programs relating to counter people smuggling activities, and the incarceration and prosecution of alleged people smugglers. It does not attempt to place a definitive figure on these costs. Rather, it highlights the available information on expenditure relating to these activities, as well as some of the difficulties in isolating expenditure that specifically relates to boat arrivals.
The Department of Defence and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service are the two agencies responsible for intercepting and transporting asylum seekers arriving by boat. However, as outlined below, this is only one aspect of these agencies’ coastal surveillance and border security responsibilities. It is necessary for Australia to maintain a certain level of capability in respect of its maritime security, and attempting to separate all the different elements that capability entails is a difficult and somewhat academic exercise.
In 2011–12, Customs was allocated $304.7 million for Program 1.4, Civil Maritime Surveillance and Response, which includes responding to ‘security threats in Australia’s maritime domain’ including unauthorised maritime arrivals.[1] This is additional to the funding Customs receives for operations aimed at preventing people smuggling. It is important to note however, that Program 1.4 also covers illegal exploitation of natural resources, marine pollution, prohibited imports and exports, compromise to bio-security, piracy, robbery or violence at sea, and maritime terrorism. Exactly how much of the funding allocation under this program is spent on irregular maritime arrivals is impossible to tell from published data. What is certain, however, is that activity relating to irregular maritime arrivals constitutes a large component of Customs’ work in this program area. For example, in 2010–11 Customs exceeded its target for aerial surveillance by almost two per cent—147.76 million square nautical miles were coved, which was 2.76 million square nautical miles above target. This was achieved 'due to sustained operational activity undertaken throughout the year in response to the constant threat of maritime people smuggling'.[2]
The table below details Customs expenditure on Civil Maritime Surveillance and Response from 1999–00 to 2009–10, and budget estimates for 2010–11 to 2014–15. It should be remembered that, as noted above, funds allocated to Customs which are used to combat people smuggling operations have historically been spread across a number of programs or output groups, and disaggregating funding is difficult. This is particularly the case in 2000–01 and 2008–09. As reported in Customs’ Annual Report 2000–01, monitoring suspected illegal entry vessels (SIEVs) for the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was split across three of Customs’ five ‘outputs’ for that year.[3] For 2008–09 it appears expenditure on what could be considered anti-people smuggling was split across Output Group 3 Border enforcement and Output Group 4 Civil Maritime Surveillance and Response.[4] For consistency, only expenditure on Civil Maritime Surveillance and Response has been included below.
Table 1: Customs funding for Civil Maritime Surveillance and Response
1999–00 to 2014–15
|
Year
|
Expenditure (m)
|
|
1999–00
|
$179.3
|
|
2000–01
|
$174.3
|
|
2001–02
|
$243.5
|
|
2002–03
|
$183.5
|
|
2003–04
|
$257.2
|
|
2004–05
|
$307.0
|
|
2005–06
|
$237.0
|
|
2006–07
|
$332.8
|
|
2007–08
|
$315.0
|
|
2008–09
|
$134.3
|
|
2009–10
|
$292.9
|
|
2010–11 (revised budget)
|
$297.5
|
|
2011–12 (budget estimate)
|
$304.7
|
|
2012–13 (budget estimate)
|
$309.3
|
|
2013–14 (budget estimate)
|
$277.2
|
|
2014–15 (budget estimate)
|
$290.7
|
Source: Australian Customs Service, Annual Reports 1999–00 to 2009–10 and Attorney-General's Portfolio, Portfolio Additional Estimates 2010–11.[5]
Customs operates eight Bay class patrol vessels, which may be used to respond to irregular maritime arrivals, although they are not solely dedicated to this task.[6] Bay class vessels are reaching their operational end of life, and in the 2011–12 Budget, funding was approved to replace them with larger and more capable ships—to be known as Cape class. In June 2011 the Home Affairs Minister announced that the contract to supply the eight new Cape class vessels would be worth $350 million.[7] This is in addition to the $42.6 million over four years provided in the 2010–11 Budget for operational costs associated with the replacement of the Bay class vessels.[8] The new vessels will enter service between 2012–2013 and 2015–16.
In response to a question in Estimates hearings held in October 2010 regarding the maintenance costs of the Bay class vessels for the remainder of their operational lives, Customs provided the following information:
The estimated costs of maintenance of the Bay Class vessels are dependent upon the transition period during production of the new Cape Class Patrol Boats, tasking levels and emergent defects.
The Bay Class vessels will be replaced by Cape Class Patrol Boats on a one-for-one basis, with transition upon operational acceptance of the new boats. This will reduce the Bay Class vessel maintenance costs in the latter stages of the forward estimates.
... The total estimated maintenance costs for Bay Class vessels, assuming a reduction in number of these vessels as the new patrol boats are rolled out, are:
|
2010/11
|
$7.2m
|
|
2011/12
|
$11.0m
|
|
2012/13
|
$12.2m
|
|
2013/14
|
$5.5m
|
|
2014/15
|
$1.4m
|
|
Total estimate:
|
$37.3m[9]
|
In addition to the Bay Class vessels, Customs manages the contracts for three leased vessels which are also deployed in border patrol activities. These are the ACV Ocean Protector, ACV Triton and ACV Ashmore Guardian. As with the Bay Class vessels, these are not deployed exclusively for intercepting and transporting IMAs. However, this responsibility forms a large share of the patrol activity undertaken by these vessels. In 2010–11 both the ACV Triton and the ACV Ocean Protector undertook five per cent more patrol days than their target, due to being required to 'facilitate the long haul transportation of passengers and crew from intercepted SIEVs'.[10]
The Department of Defence has budgeted $9.8 million (cost to be absorbed by the Department) in the 2011–12 Budget for ‘Operation Resolute’, which contributes to Australia’s whole of government coastal surveillance efforts.[11] However, irregular maritime arrivals are only one of the security threats targeted by Operation Resolute—others include: maritime terrorism; piracy, robbery and violence at sea; compromise to bio-security; illegal activity in protected areas; illegal exploitation of natural resources (such as illegal fishing) and marine pollution; and prohibited imports and exports.
At any one time there are approximately 400 ADF personnel assigned to Operation Resolute, and permanent ADF resources allocated to Operation Resolute comprise:
- Air Force AP-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft
- At least seven Navy Armidale Class Patrol Boats (ACPBs)—operating daily throughout Australia’s northern offshore maritime areas
- Australian Army Regional Force Surveillance Unit (RFSU) patrols
- A Transit Security Element (TSE) of approximately 37 personnel from either Army or Air Force
- A standby Navy Major Fleet Unit (MFU) for northern waters response.[12]
The net additional cost of Operation Resolute since it began is outlined in the table below.
Table 2: Defence funding for Operation Resolute 2007–08 to 2011–12
|
1999–00 to 2006–07 Actual $m
|
2007–08 Actual $m
|
2008–09
Actual $m
|
2009–10
Actual $m
|
2010–11
Actual $m
|
2011–12
Budget estimate*
|
Total $m
|
|
96.9
|
7.0
|
10.0
|
10.3
|
8.2
|
9.8
|
149.3
|
*Note that for the year 2011–12, Defence will absorb the cost of Operation Resolute.
Source: Defence portfolio, Portfolio Budget Statements 2011–12, p.32.
While all the funding outlined above enables the interception of irregular maritime arrivals, it is not possible to derive a specific figure for the cost of this particular task because, as outlined above, each program supports a range of activities associated with achieving multiple objectives. Determining how much of the total allocations for these activities is spent on intercepting irregular maritime arrivals is an impossible task, based on the information which is currently publicly available.
Detention is currently the largest single identifiable cost associated with asylum seekers arriving by boat. Budget papers reveal that expenditure on detention has increased significantly in recent years as arrivals have increased.[13]
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) has historically not provided detailed information on the cost of detention by centre or per detainee, arguing that all centres are used flexibly and costs vary day by day depending on the number of detainees and other variables.[14] However, in a response to a question on notice from the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Immigration Detention Network in August 2011, DIAC did provide estimates of operating costs for each immigration detention facility for 2001–12. These estimates range from $2 million in operating costs for Perth Immigration Residential Housing, to $200 million for Christmas Island (all facilities).[15] It is important to note however that these are estimates only, and actual costs will vary according to factors such as number of detainees, processing times, and specific detainee needs. Attempting to extrapolate from this a reliable figure for the cost of detention per individual is therefore highly problematic.
Expenditure on detaining and processing asylum seekers who arrive at an offshore place is accounted for under Program 4.3, Offshore Asylum Seeker Management in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) portfolio. Administered items under Program 4.3 include not only Community and Detention services, but also programs aimed at reducing unauthorised arrivals—Management and Care of Irregular Immigrants in Indonesia and Regional Cooperation and Capacity Building.
The 2011–12 Budget provides a total of $1.05 billion for administered and departmental expenses under Program 4.3 in 2011–12.[16] This represents a significant increase from the $762.8 million for 2010–11 and the $304.3 million that was spent in 2009–10. The 2009–10 Budget had anticipated that costs under Program 4.3 would increase in line with increasing numbers of unauthorised boat arrivals.[17] Consequently subsequent budget estimates have fallen short and have been revised to meet the costs of the increases in the number of arrivals in the last two years.
The table below shows how expenditure under Program 4.3 has increased over the last four years.
Table 3: DIAC Funding for Offshore Asylum Seeker Management, 2008–09 to 2011–12
|
|
2008–09
(revised budget) $m
|
2009–10
(revised budget) $m
|
2010–11
(revised budget) $m
|
2011–12
(budget estimate) $m
|
|
Administered expenses
|
|
Community and detention services
|
$35.2
|
$149.4
|
$561.9
|
$709.4
|
|
Management and care of irregular immigrants in Indonesia
|
-
|
$5.0
|
$3.0
|
$17.9
|
|
Regional cooperation and capacity building
|
$17.0
|
$28.9
|
$32.2
|
$47.2
|
|
Returns and reintegration assistance packages
|
-
|
-
|
$5.0
|
$6.9
|
|
Refugee status determinations for offshore entry persons
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
$17.4
|
|
Regional cooperation framework
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
$26.3
|
|
Departmental expenses*
|
$59.2
|
$121.0
|
$160.7
|
$233.3
|
|
Total administered and departmental expenses for Program 4.3 Offshore Asylum Seeker Management
|
$111.5
|
$304.3
|
$762.8
|
$1058.3
|
Source: Immigration and Citizenship portfolio, Portfolio budget statements 2009–10 onwards.
*Departmental expenses include service delivery and policy advice and program design. These are not disaggregated by each administered component of Program 4.3 in the budget papers.
The management of offshore entry asylum seekers includes expenditure on Community and Detention services, involving contracts for the provision of support, health and detention services in community and detention environments on both Christmas Island and the mainland. The estimate for Community and Detention Services for 2011–12 is $709.4 million (an increase of approximately $148 million from the $561.9 million spent in 2010–11).[18]
It is important to remember, however, that the projected increase in total expenditure in Program 4.3 in 2011–12 is not solely attributable to detention costs. The other two continuing administered items under Program 4.3, which are aimed at reducing boat arrivals, have also received a significant increase in funding in 2011–12. Management and Care of Irregular Immigrants in Indonesia leapt from $3 million in 2010–11 to $17.9 million in 2011–12, while Regional Cooperation and Capacity Building increased from $32.2 million in 2010–11 to $47.2 million in 2011–12.[19]
Additionally, in the 2011–12 Budget two new administered items were added under Program 4.3:
- Refugee Status Determinations for Offshore Entry Persons has been allocated $107.7 million over four years ‘to support the new process for determination of refugee status for offshore entry persons … [which] is part of the commitment made by the Government in response to the High Court decision that confirmed the availability of judicial review for offshore entry persons’.[20]
- $75.9 million over four years was allocated for the new Regional Cooperation Framework, under which the Government negotiated a bilateral agreement concerning the transfer of 800 irregular maritime arrivals to Malaysia.[21]
On 31 August 2011 the High Court of Australia ruled that the arrangement with Malaysia for the transfer of asylum seekers was unlawful. Efforts by the Government to find a legislative solution to this hurdle were unsuccessful, and the Government has conceded that transfer of asylum seekers will not proceed. This will obviously have significant implications on budgeted expenditure under Program 4.3.
Firstly, the money budgeted for the arrangement with Malaysia will now go largely unspent. However of potentially greater significance will be the impact on the forward estimates in relation to the numbers of irregular maritime arrivals budgeted for. The Government had been relying on the arrangement with Malaysia to significantly reduce numbers of boat arrivals, thereby also reducing spending in this area. This expectation of a reduction in arrivals will necessarily have to be revised in light of the Malaysia arrangement being, for the immediate future at least, off the table.
Further, the Government has announced that all asylum seekers arriving by boat will be processed in Australia and some may be released from detention on bridging visas while their claims are processed.[22] This will also obviously have an impact on expenditure under Program 4.3, as the cost of processing asylum applications while people are living independently in the community is very different to the cost of keeping people in detention while their claims are processed. DIAC has not provided a detailed cost comparison between community detention and detention centres, however in October 2011 Secretary of the Department, Andrew Metcalfe told a Senate Estimates hearing that ‘the general working view is that for people in community detention centres there is less cost than if they are in detention centres.’[23]
According to the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook:
... onshore processing costs related to irregular maritime arrivals are expected to increase by $1.3 billion over four years as a result of an increase in expected arrival rates compared to those at Budget. This is partly offset by $1.1 billion in reduced costs and savings associated with not progressing offshore processing arrangements at this time, leaving a net impact on the budget of $197 million over four years.[24]
Figures on total expenses for community and detention services onshore are provided under Program 4.2, Onshore Detention Network. In the 2010–11 Budget, total expenses for Program 4.2 (administered and departmental) were estimated at $93.8 million.[25] In the 2011–12 Budget, expenditure for 2010–11 was revised down to $88.5 million and the estimated budget for 2011–12 is $90.2 million.[26]
This stability in ongoing expenses for the onshore detention network can be explained by the fact that the costs associated with the management of asylum seekers who are transferred from Christmas Island to the mainland continue to be met from the budget for Program 4.3 Offshore Asylum Seeker Management. It is also important to note that expenditure on onshore detention services is not exclusively for asylum seekers. The onshore immigration detention population also includes other detainees such as visa overstayers and other unlawful non-citizens awaiting deportation.
In addition to ongoing running costs associated with immigration detention, significant funding has been provided over the last several years in capital costs associated with the immigration detention network. Capital expenditure on detention facilities for the period 2007–08 to 2009–10 is shown below.
Table 4: Capital expenditure on immigration detention facilities, 2007–08 to 2009–10
|
|
2007–08
|
2008–09
|
2009–10
|
|
Capital expenditure ($m)
|
328.3
|
12.1
|
46.2
|
Source: Immigration and Citizenship portfolio, Additional Estimates February 2011[27]
The 2010–11 Budget allocated a further $202 million over five years to increase capacity, maintain and upgrade service delivery and upgrade infrastructure in both onshore and offshore immigration detention facilities including capital funding for several immigration detention facilities.[28] In the 2011–12 Budget an additional $24 million was allocated over two years in capital measures for two new detention facilities. This comprises $14.8 million for works to a defence facility at Pontville, Tasmania, and $9.2 million for works to a facility at Wickham Point in the Northern Territory. [29]
Once again, these costs cannot be attributed solely to asylum seekers arriving by boat, as the detention network is utilised more broadly. However, much of the increase in capital expenditure on detention centres can reasonably be attributed to boat arrivals, as a number of new centres have been opened and announced in the last two years specifically to ease the pressure on the detention network created by large numbers of unauthorised boat arrivals.[30]
All asylum seekers over the age of 16 who are found to be refugees (along with many other visa applicants) must undergo a security assessment before they may be granted a visa.[31] This assessment is conducted by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). In 2009–10 ASIO conducted 2822 security assessments for irregular maritime arrivals. This was a substantial increase from the 207 assessments conducted in 2008–09.[32] There is no specific program identified in the ASIO budget statements for security assessments, and ASIO does not publicly comment on resources available for specific activities so it is not possible for observers to know how much this activity costs. In response to a question on notice taken at a budget estimates hearing in February 2011 ASIO advised:
ASIO regularly reviews and revises the allocation of resources to Security Assessment. This may not always be a straightforward matter, as Security Assessment requires appropriate skills and expertise. For security reasons, it would be inappropriate to comment publicly on the resources dedicated to specific ASIO work.[33]
In addition to the funding outlined above, there are numerous other costs associated with detaining and processing asylum seekers who arrive by boat, which are impossible to quantify. These would include such things as the costs to state and territory police services associated with responding to incidents at detention centres, and training provided to staff working in the detention network, which may not necessarily be funded out of the detention services budget.
Significant costs would be incurred by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) although again, these are impossible to quantify on the basis of publicly available information. The AFP maintains a presence on Christmas Island, and is involved in responding to disturbances in detention facilities, as well as conducting interviews with both asylum seekers and crew members as part of its investigations into people smuggling offences. In October 2011 the AFP advised that there were 46 AFP staff members on Christmas Island at that time.[34] This is a significant increase from 2008, when there were 9 AFP members on Christmas Island.[35]Additionally, the AFP is sometimes involved in responding to incidents at detention facilities on the mainland. Costs are also incurred by the AFP in relation to investigating and prosecuting people smuggling activity, and engaging in counter-people smuggling efforts overseas. These are outlined in more detail below.
As is the case with border security, it is necessary for the Government to maintain a certain level of capability in its federal police force, which may be deployed in response to any number of matters, and investigate a wide range of offences. Attempting to determine the specific costs to the AFP of matters concerning asylum seekers and people smuggling is extremely difficult.
Contrary to some popular misconceptions, asylum seekers in detention are not entitled to welfare payments, and those who have been determined to be refugees are not entitled to welfare payments beyond those that any Australian resident may claim. However, asylum seekers who are released from detention on a bridging visa (along with those who have not arrived unauthorised and are living in the community while awaiting processing of their claim), may be entitled to some assistance under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme. Additionally, people who have been determined to be refugees are entitled to government assistance in order to help them settle in to Australia. [36]
The detention and prosecution of alleged people smugglers, and the provision of legal aid to such people, is an area which is often overlooked when considering the total costs associated with irregular maritime arrivals. And yet this is another area in which costs have been increasing substantially in recent years.
As at 20 May 2011, 292 crew members had been charged with people smuggling offences, and a further 62 were in immigration detention facilities facing possible charges.[37] The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is responsible for the investigation of people smuggling cases. The precise cost of this to the AFP cannot be determined from available information. In the 2009–10 Budget the AFP was allocated $41.6 million over four years part of which was for the funding of officers for the People Smuggling Strike Team.[38] However there is no way of knowing, from the publicly available information, how much of this allocation was for use by the Strike Team for people smuggling investigations domestically, and how much was targeted at its overseas operations, such as engagement with foreign law enforcement agencies.
Investigating people smuggling matters is certainly an area which places significant demand on the AFP’s resources. As at October 2011, there were 99 AFP employees working on people smuggling matters nationally.[39] Between 1 January 2009 and 28 February 2011 the AFP conducted interviews with 656 crew members, and obtained 1703 statements from passengers.[40]
Prosecution of cases are commenced by the AFP by way of arrest and charge.[41] Over the last three calendar years, 493 people have been arrested for people smuggling related offences (as at 18 October 2011).[42] The vast majority of these arrests have related to ventures allegedly undertaken prior to the mandatory sentencing regime that came into operation in 2010 (discussed below). Also, of these arrests only ten have been what are termed people-smuggling organisers. As at 18 October 2011, the AFP had seven extraditions of suspected people smugglers on foot—that is people arrested overseas who the AFP are trying to extradite to Australia.[43] According to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), there were 30 people smuggling prosecutions involving organisers, captain and crew before the courts as at 30 June 2009.[44] A year later (as at 30 June 2010) there were 102 people smuggling prosecutions underway. By 30 June 2011 this figure had tripled to 304.[45]
During the period 1 January 2009 to 18 October 2011, a total of 170 crew members and four organisers had been convicted of people smuggling related offences.[46]
Table 5: People smuggling convictions, 2009 to 2011
|
Calendar year
|
Number of convictions of crew
|
|
2009
|
27
|
|
2010
|
62
|
|
2011 (as at 18 October)
|
81
|
|
Total
|
170
|
While as at 25 February 2010, only one people smuggling organiser had been convicted, one year later (as at 23 February 2011) five had been convicted.[47] As at 15 March 2011, no organisers had been charged under the new people smuggling offence provisions in the Migration Act 1958 requiring mandatory minimum sentencing (discussed below).
The Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is also experiencing resource implications as a result in the increase in people smuggling prosecutions. Prior to the increase in people-smuggling prosecutions, the DPP would normally prosecute around 100 indictable trials before juries around the country in a given year. However, their expectation is that around 83 further people-smuggling-related trials will arise in the current financial year, and in 2012-13 they envisage another 99 trials from that source alone.[48]
The Attorney-General’s Department has advised that estimates based on Western Australia cost outcomes reveal that ‘the average cost of matters to date in WA has been $20 000 per defended matter’.[49] However, it must be borne in mind that not all cases will require a full defended hearing—based on the DPP’s experience the Attorney-General’s Department has estimated that in around 30 per cent of cases the defendants will plead guilty, and these are estimated on average to cost $2000.[50]
It is not publicly known how many convicted people smugglers are appealing their conviction or sentence.
The Government provides legal aid funding to the states and territories for high cost Commonwealth criminal matters through the Expensive Commonwealth Criminal Cases Fund (ECCCF). During 2009–10, $0.5 million was reimbursed to legal aid commissions from the ECCCF for people smuggling cases.[51]
The 2011–12 budget papers show that the Government has allocated $28.9 million over three years to the ECCCF to reimburse costs incurred by state and territory legal aid commissions in the provision of legal assistance in Commonwealth law-related cases, including people smuggling cases.[52] This funding is comprised of $17.6 million for 2010–11 (in the 2010–11 Attorney General's Portfolio Additional Estimates this was specifically allocated for legal aid to combat people smuggling); $4.2 million for 2011–12; and $7.1 million for 2012–13.[53]
As of 22 June 2011, all reimbursements from the ECCCF for people smuggling matters had been made to Legal Aid Western Australia where most of the people smuggling cases had been prosecuted.[54] However, people smuggling cases are now being conducted in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.[55] Average cost data for these jurisdictions will not be known until a larger number of matters are finalised.
On 31 May 2010, the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Act 2010 came into operation.[56] Of most direct relevance, it introduced a new aggravated offence in the Migration Act for people smuggling involving exploitation or danger of death or serious harm (section 233B) and extended the application of higher mandatory minimum penalties to this new offence and to persons who were convicted of multiple aggravated people-smuggling offences in the same hearing. Prior to this amendment, the higher mandatory minimum penalty for repeat offenders only applied where a person had a previous people-smuggling conviction, not where a people smuggler had organised numerous ventures over a period of time.
This Act also inserted into the Migration Act section 233C, which provides for the aggravated offence of people smuggling involving at least five people. This offence carries a penalty of imprisonment for a maximum 20 years or a fine of $220 000 or both, and the mandatory minimum penalty provisions explained above also apply. This offence was simply a remodel of previous section 232A which was titled ‘Organising bringing groups of non-citizens into Australia’. As at 15 March 2011, 44 crew members had been arrested and charged under new section 233C of the Migration Act.[57] Those convicted will face a mandatory minimum penalty of five years imprisonment with three years non-parole period.[58]
According to the Productivity Commission ‘nationally in 2009–10, the total cost per prisoner per day, comprising net operating expenditure, depreciation, debt servicing fees and user cost of capital, was $275’.[59] Thus, based on this estimation it costs approximately $0.5 million to keep a convicted people smuggler imprisoned in Australia for five years. It must be noted that a judge may back date sentencing from the date the maritime vessel was intercepted at sea or to take into account time already spent in immigration detention.[60]
When asked at Senate Estimates on 22 February 2011 whether any states had raised issues regarding the additional funding for courts and prisons to meet the demands from increasing crew prosecutions, the Attorney-General’s Department advised as follows:
New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia have raised funding issues associated with people smuggling crew prosecutions. States and Territories are funded as part of the distribution of GST revenue for the costs of courts and corrections associated with prosecuting and imprisoning of people smuggling crew. The Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) introduced a new funding model for distributing GST revenue that applies from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2015. Under this model, funding is allocated for justice services based on the actual population of a State or Territory rather than the number of federal prisoners within each jurisdiction...[61]
In addition to the money spent on dealing with the consequences of people smuggling into Australia as outlined above, the Government spends a considerable amount of money on counter-people smuggling activities in an attempt to reduce the number of arrivals. These areas of expenditure are often considered together, but are in fact two sides of the same coin—one funding allocation is designed at preventing people from entering Australia irregularly by boat and the other is spent on the costs associated with those who continue to arrive, despite such efforts to deter them.
Counter-people smuggling efforts are shared across several agencies and portfolios, and detail regarding specific activities and funding is often far from transparent, due to the clandestine nature of the activities being targeted. For these reasons, it is unlikely the total amount spent on these activities will ever be publicly known. Identifiable funding on counter-people smuggling activities in recent years is outlined below, but this should not be considered an exhaustive account of expenditure in this area.
In the 2009–10 Budget, the Government allocated $654 million across several portfolios to fund a whole of government strategy to combat people smuggling.[62] This was followed by an investment of $1.2 billion to ‘bolster Australia’s border security’ (mostly allocated to border and aviation security initiatives) in the 2010–11 Budget.[63]
In the 2011–12 Budget, the Government allocated funding across several portfolios for measures aimed at preventing and deterring people smuggling and irregular migration. This funding, largely for measures in the Immigration and Attorney-General’s portfolios, signals continued government investment in border protection and people smuggling deterrence, building on funding provided for such measures in the previous two budgets.[64]
Much of the funding for specific enforcement measures announced in the 2011–12 Budget as part of the Government’s response to people smuggling is for the continuation or extension of existing measures. It includes:
- $3 million over two years to enable Customs to maintain the Government’s anti-people smuggling communications campaign in source and transit countries
- $10.8 million over two years to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and $8.0 million over two years to Customs to maintain the deployment of AFP and Customs liaison officers to several key source and transit countries
- $15.3 million over two years to Customs to maintain aerial surveillance of Australia’s northern waters (by commercial contractors)
- $33.3 million over three years to strengthen cooperation with countries in the region in responding to irregular migration
- $14.8 million over two years to the Australian Secret Intelligence Service to enhance its intelligence capability in combating people smuggling and
- $9 million over two years to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to continue Australia’s engagement with key regional countries on people smuggling issues.[65]
Additionally, $6.7 million over two years in new funding was allocated to the Attorney-General’s Department for the provision of legal assistance and training to assist authorities in source and transit countries develop and improve their own people smuggling laws.[66]
Efforts to combat people smuggling on a regional level have been relatively successful according to the Minister for Home Affairs:
The Australian Federal Police continues to provide support to foreign law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat people smuggling activities in the region. These close working relationships have resulted in a number of arrests and disruptions to people smuggling ventures in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka. As a direct result of these strong working relationships, since September 2008, in Indonesia there have been 147 identified disruptions; 3813 foreign nationals detained by Indonesian authorities; and 87 arrests of facilitators/organisers.[67]
It could therefore be argued, from a cost-benefit perspective, that funding for counter-people smuggling, while undoubtedly high, is money well spent, as for every boat or individual that is prevented from reaching Australia, money is saved in interception, detention and processing costs.
It is clear that the costs associated with asylum seekers arriving by boat, as well as counter-people smuggling efforts, are significant, and have increased considerably in recent years. However, it is impossible to place an exact figure on such costs, as spending in this area is rarely separated out from spending on other associated activities.
While most of the relevant programs do not exclusively target asylum seekers arriving by boat, it is likely a significant proportion of expenditure would currently be targeted at this area. Certainly recent dramatic increases in funding coincide with significant increases in arrivals, suggesting this is the case. Yet it remains impossible to know for certain. No government has ever provided a total figure, across all programs and all agencies, showing what it costs in any given year to intercept, detain and process asylum seekers who arrive unauthorised by boat.
However, while the full extent of expenditure in this area may never be known, this attempt to identify relevant expenditure reveals that the costs must clearly run into billions of dollars over time. Indeed, funding for Offshore Asylum Seeker Management in DIAC is estimated at $1.05 billion for 2011–12 alone. Despite the significant funding which has been provided in recent years for counter-people smuggling activities and deterrence measures, the costs associated with the interception, detention and processing of irregular maritime arrivals remain high.
[3]. The three outputs which had some people smuggling aspect were: Facilitation of movement of legitimate goods across the border, while intercepting prohibited and restricted imports and exports; Facilitation of the legitimate movement of people across the border, while identifying illegal movements; and civil maritime surveillance and response. See Australian Customs Service, Annual Report 2000–01: 100 years of service 1901–2001, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2001, pp. 55, 60–62, viewed 29 July 2011, http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/ACSannualRep2000_2001.pdf
[31]. Security assessments are generally not conducted on persons under age of 16.
[32]. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Attorney-General’s Portfolio, Budget Estimates 2011–12, 25 May 2011, p. 139, viewed 14 September 2011, http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s58.pdf It should be noted that entrants under the offshore humanitarian program also require security assessments, and the linking of the onshore and offshore humanitarian programs means that if boat arrivals are low, then more visas are granted under the offshore program. Thus, ASIO would still incur costs associated with security assessments for humanitarian entrants, even if the number of IMAs was zero.
[36]. These entitlements, which are separate to the costs of detaining and processing unauthorised boat arrivals, are outlined in further detail in L Buckmaster, Australian Government assistance to refugees: fact vs fiction, Parliamentary Library, Background note, December 2009, viewed 12 September 2011, http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/BN/sp/AustGovAssist_Refugees.pdf
[39]. This figure includes 73 investigators, 13 intelligence officers, 10 support staff and 3 officers seconded from Customs and DIAC. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Attorney-General's Portfolio, Supplementary Budget Estimates 2011–12, 18 October 2011, p. 33, viewed 30 November 2011, http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s377.pdf
[40] Senate legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on notice, Attorney-General’s Portfolio, Supplementary Budget Estimates 2010–11, 22 February 2011, Question no. 6, viewed 9 November 2011,
[42]. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Attorney-General's Portfolio, Supplementary Budget Estimates 2010–11, 18 October 2011, Hansard transcript, viewed 7 November 2011, http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s377.pdf. See also the AFP’s breakdown of each of the people-smuggling related charges over the last 3 years including the date, the location of the arrest and the incident to which it related to as well as the charge outlined in: Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions on notice, Attorney-General's Portfolio, Additional Estimates 2010–11, 22 February 2011, Question no. 25 attachment, viewed 4 July 2011, http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/estimates/add_1011/ag/025_AFP_Attachment.pdf.
[53]. Australian Government, Portfolio Additional Estimates 2010–11, Attorney-General's Portfolio, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2011, p. 16; and Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2011–12, op. cit., p. 103.
[54]. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions on notice, Attorney-General's Portfolio, Budget Estimates 2010–11, 26 May 2011, Question no. 74, viewed 7 November2011, http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/estimates/bud_1112/ag/74_SID.PDF.
[58]. A person convicted of multiple offences in the same proceeding will be subject to the higher mandatory minimum penalties of eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au. Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.