Chapter 2 - Preparations for the removal of Ms Solon

2.1       This chapter examines the events leading to the removal of Ms Solon on 20 July 2001 and considers the decision and actions of DIMIA and DFAT in the period preceding her removal.

Background

2.2       Ms Vivian Solon, an Australian citizen, was removed by DIMIA from Australia to the Philippines on 20 July 2001 under the presumption that she was an unlawful non-citizen. Ms Solon had been married and divorced, and therefore was known by other names. The name Alvarez was her mother's family name, Solon was her father's family name and Young is her husband's surname. DIMIA explained that when Vivian was removed she was known to them as Ms Alvarez. The fact that Ms Alvarez was the same person as Ms Solon was only discovered later. As explained by DIMIA:

...in July 2001 the people who were involved in Ms Alvarez's removal from Australia were focussing on the name 'Alvarez'. There was another matter going on at the same time relating to an inquiry about the missing person Solon Young. They were two separate streams of inquiry.[6]

2.3       The committee will refer to Vivian as Ms Solon but will use the name Alvarez when used by witnesses.

Events prior to removal

2.4       In March 2001, Vivian was seriously injured and subsequently deemed to be a possible quadriplegic.[7] She also suffered brain damage and other injuries.[8] On 31 March 2001, Vivian was admitted to Lismore hospital under the name Vivian Alvarez. She told the hospital that she had a husband. On 3 April 2001, the compliance manager of the Southport office received a call from a social worker at the hospital regarding Ms Solon.[9]

2.5       Some time before 18 April 2005, Vivian was transferred to Liverpool hospital for spinal surgery. On 23 April 2005, she was said to be 'more lucid now'.[10] She returned to Lismore after two weeks to receive rehabilitation treatment. From documents that her lawyers have seen, 'it appears the hospital had a policy that if a patient was admitted without an Australian Medicare card and appeared to be of foreign extraction, they should be checked by the medical admissions officer with the department of immigration'.[11]

2.6       Mr Freedman, lawyer for Ms Solon, reported to the committee that after returning from Liverpool hospital, Vivian had various interviews with DIMIA officers. She informed them that she was married to an Australian citizen and that she had a passport.[12] Mr Freedman went on to state that:

It appears to us that at the time of the interviews she was not in a proper physical or mental condition to give full and accurate answers to the questions that she was being asked; however she did make a point of confirming that she said she was an Australian citizen, she was married to an Australian and she had a child.[13]

2.7       Mr Freedman added that records from DIMIA suggest she travelled to and from Australia four or five times since first arriving with her husband, Mr Young.[14]

2.8       Between 23 April and 13 July 2001, DIMIA interviewed Ms Alvarez and made inquiries to determine her immigration status and a series of bridging visas were issued.[15] The written records show that on 3 May 2001, Ms Alvarez was interviewed by a DIMIA officer. The following day, a DIMIA officer noted that, based on an interview, he 'considered it most likely that the a/n was an unauthorised undocumented arrival'. He also noted that she claimed to be an Australian citizen, to have married an Australian citizen, and to have had a passport and a visa.[16]

DIMIA lines of inquiry

2.9       Based on the evidence, there is no doubt that Ms Solon had told DIMIA officials that she had been married, was an Australian citizen, had a passport and a visa to come to Australia.[17] These lines of enquiry did not appear to have been followed up. As stated by Mr Freedman:

Up to that point in time (her removal), Vivian had had various contacts with government departments. She had been married and had been divorced. She had been known to Queensland Community Services, she had been receiving social security payments and she had also been known to the police. She was not a stranger to the Australian government or to the government authorities.[18]

2.10      It should be noted, however, that Ms Solon gave an incorrect name for her former husband, an incorrect date for her arrival in Australia and her citizenship certificate is under the name of Vivian Young alias Solon. Furthermore, the details she gave about her arrival in Australia were vague and confused.

2.11      Documentation provided to the committee showed that when determining her citizenship status in 2001, DIMIA did not contact DFAT to find out whether she had an Australian passport.[19] It should be noted that Ms Solon was granted Australian citizenship on 3 March 1986.[20] Evidence indicates that DIMIA only conducted systems checks.

2.12      A formal interview was conducted with Ms Alvarez by DIMIA on 13 July 2001.[21] In that interview, 'Vivian notes again her correct place of birth, her date of birth, the fact that she is an Australian citizen and that she is divorced'.[22] That same day, a Request for Officer to Hold in Immigration Detention form was issued in the name of Vivian Alvarez on the basis that she was known or reasonably suspected to be an unlawful non-citizen[23] and she became an immigration detainee.[24] At that time, DIMIA officers made arrangements for Ms Solon to be transported from Lismore Base Hospital to a hotel near the Brisbane airport where she was placed under guard until she was removed.[25]

2.13      Although Ms Alvarez told interviewing officers that she was an Australian citizen and also that she was divorced, these potential lines of inquiry were not followed up. Ms Daniels, Assistant Secretary, Compliance and Analysis Branch, DIMIA, explained that 'the reasons those leads were not followed up is not clear to us because we have not spoken to the individuals'.[26] She also said 'it has been stated that the facts in this case warranted significantly more checking'.[27]

2.14      Regarding the process that would have been followed by the compliance officer in determining the immigration status of Ms Solon, Ms Daniels said:

The compliance officer would have had at their disposal the instructions available at the time, which would have been the Migration Series Instruction (MSI) relating to compliance, detention and removal. At that time—I cannot remember the detail of that document—it would presumably not have instructed the person to take on each piece of information and explore it to the nth degree until they were satisfied that that piece of information had no substance.[28]

2.15      Based on the written record, the committee is not convinced that DIMIA took all necessary and appropriate steps to establish Ms Solon's identity. It notes, however, that Ms Daniel also informed the committee that changes have been made to the process. She explained:

The processes in place now mean that those elements of information would need to be explored exhaustively. In a sense, it is that investigative method being brought to the attention in the Palmer inquiry that is required in the examination of information by compliance officers and removal officers in this sort of work, through escalation, referral to detention review managers, review by detention review managers and central office support through the NIVA unit—the National Identity Verification and Advice Unit.[29]

2.16      Ms Daniels said 'I think it would be fair to say in hindsight that these elements of information could have and should have been pursued. As to why they were not, I think I have made the point that I cannot speculate on why that happened.'[30] She summarised that 'it certainly would not be the case now that those avenues of inquiry would not be pursued'.[31]

2.17      One disturbing aspect of the Solon case is that early assumptions made about her character carried through unquestioned until her removal. During the initial stages of determining Ms Solon's immigration status, some DIMIA officers assumed, without any shred evidence that she was a sex worker. For example, without grounds for such an assumption, a DIMIA note goes so far as to state that she was 'smuggled into Australia as sex slave'.[32] The committee is of the view that this perception of Ms Solon may well have influenced the degree of diligence shown in the efforts to establish her identity and the decision to remove her.

Committee view

2.18      The committee is in no doubt that DIMIA needed to address the failings in the system made so evident in the case of Ms Solon. It notes the assurances given by DIMIA that measures have been taken to remedy the obvious shortcomings in its processes in determining immigration status. It awaits the Ombudsman's report before commenting further on the adequacy of these measures.

The decision to remove Ms Solon

2.19      The committee was told that the officers dealing with Ms Solon's case were at the APS 5 or APS 6 level[33] which is a middle ranking officer in the Australian Public Service. Ms Daniels said that 'the officers reached the conclusion that they reasonably suspected she was unlawful, so they regularised her status by granting a bridging visa'.[34]

2.20      When asked about the decision to remove a person, Mr Williams, Assistant Secretary, Unauthorised Arrivals and Detention Operations Branch, DIMIA, told the committee:

On a small technical issue, because of the way the Act is structured, there is technically no decision to remove. Removal is a duty that an officer is required to carry out if a person is an unlawful non-citizen and they have not applied for a visa, or they have applied for one and it has been refused...there is a process that was required to be followed under the policy that those factors be determined and removal occur once those factors had been decided.[35]

2.21      With regard to the Ms Solon case, it would appear according to Ms Daniels 'that one officer made an instruction to an ACM [Australasian Correctional Management] officer to hold this person in immigration detention'.[36] She told the committee that on 19 July 2001, an email advising of Ms Solon's removal was sent to the relevant division head.[37]

2.22      The evidence establishes that the decision to remove Ms Solon from Australia was made by an officer at the APS 5 or APS 6 level with no direct referral to senior officers for review and possibly no review of the file. DIMIA officers, however, informed the committee that now all decisions to remove unlawful non-citizens are cleared by a Senior Executive Service (SES) officer.[38]

Committee view

2.23      In Ms Solon's case, a relatively junior officer had the authority to determine that she was an unlawful non-citizen and as a consequence was to be removed. The committee finds this situation unacceptable. It notes that DIMIA now requires an SES officer to clear all decisions to remove unlawful non-citizens. The committee is concerned that this measure is insufficient to prevent junior officers from assuming, or being expected to assume, a level of responsibility that is inappropriate for their position. It awaits the Ombudsman's findings before making any further comment.

Official procedures for determining a person is an unlawful non-citizen

2.24      Mr Williams told the committee that the determination that removal was necessary requires the completion of a form but that there was no such form in the documentation. Mr Williams said that attached to form MSI 54 there is a checklist titled 'steps for removal, when and if required' which is a process list regarding obtaining travel documents, tickets, escorts etc.[39]

2.25      The committee is concerned to hear that this form did not evidence the actual process of decision, but seems to be a checklist of things to do once the decision had been made. The process appears to be that the DIMIA officer, having a suspicion that a person is an unlawful non-citizen, comes to this conclusion but there is no written record of the decision having been made or any supporting documentation. At the first interview with Ms Solon in May 2001, the officer notes 'From interview, I consider it most likely that the a/n was an unauthorised, undocumented arrival'.[40]

2.26      The committee also heard that at the interview in May 2001 an interpreter was used who was a DIMIA employee. Ms Daniels admitted that they do not know if the person is an accredited interpreter and 'hence in hindsight it would have been far more desirable for an interpreter to be accredited and objective, not a DIMIA person'.[41]

Committee view

2.27      Clearly, the written record exposed serious flaws in the decision-making process in Ms Solon's case. Not only was the decision taken by a relatively junior officer but the documentation relative to the process was inadequate. The committee finds that transparency and accountability were lacking in the process leading to the determination to remove her. It believes that any officer involved in a process determining the immigration status of a person must adhere to strict guidelines and that written records must substantiate that adherence. The committee notes the change that now requires an SES officer to clear all decisions to remove an unlawful non-citizen. It considers that such a sign off must contain a checklist of documentation which should include clear evidence of the checks made to establish or verify identity, medical/psychological assessments/requirements, offers of legal assistance and other enquiries pursued. All records of interview must be signed by the interviewee and if unable to be signed must be witnessed and certified as correct by a third party.

2.28      The committee now considers whether the process to remove Ms Solon was in keeping with recognised basic rights.

Ms Solon's legal rights

2.29      The committee sought to establish whether prior to her removal, Ms Solon was advised of the fact that she was an unlawful non-citizen and was facing removal and what advice she received regarding her legal rights.

2.30      A DIMIA Southport file note dated 7 June 2001, records 'I raised the possibility of contacting a legal aid organisation to provide immigration assistance to the a/n. [the person it was raised with] stated that the a/n has been refusing all offers of assistance, and seems to be resigned to accepting whatever fate deals her. I stated that if she does not wish to lodge an application, the department would have to look at ways to remove her'.[42]

2.31      This is the only direct reference in the written record to any attempt by DIMIA to obtain assistance for Ms Solon regarding her immigration status. It seems to have been made through a third person.

2.32      Ms Daniels agreed that there was no record on the file to confirm that information regarding Ms Solon's legal rights was provided to her. She explained that:

a person taken into immigration detention would normally—and I cannot say that this happened in this case, or that we have a record that it happened in this case—be given a piece of information which we call a very important notice, a VIN, which explains the detention that they are about to enter and amongst other things, would tell them that they have the right to access consular officials. I cannot remember what the specific words are in respect of access to legal services, but the document is intended to tell people about their situation and their rights within that context.[43]

2.33      Ms Daniels later added that in the interview that was conducted with Ms Solon on 13 July 2001, Ms Solon was asked 'have you read or did an interpreter read to you the notice to people in immigration detention'. The answer recorded was 'yes'.[44] This record of interview, however, was not signed by Ms Solon. It carried an annotation by the interviewer, 'unable to sign'. The committee notes further that there was no certification by a witness that the record of interview was correct.

2.34      The committee considers that the offer of legal assistance should have been made directly to Ms Solon as part of the removal process. It is concerned that there is no evidence that this was done. The question in the interview on 13 July 2001 about the notice to people in immigration detention being read to Ms Solon does not allay the committee's concerns as we know from the documentation that she was confused and providing contradictory information. Her lawyers told the committee she was in no fit state to answer the questions at this time and furthermore, she was unable to sign the record of this interview.

Committee view

2.35      The committee finds that DIMIA officers did not take adequate measures to ensure that Ms Solon was made fully aware of her rights and that no person was made available to represent her interests. It would appear that this confused, infirmed woman, who may well have been the victim of an assault or road accident, who did not have any family or friends to support her, was destitute, without a known identity and facing removal to another country, was not afforded appropriate and proper legal assistance. The committee believes that this situation is unacceptable and calls for DIMIA to redress this matter urgently.

Health of Ms Solon

2.36      Questions were also raised by witnesses about the health of Ms Solon at the time of her removal and whether DIMIA fulfilled its duty of care. The records show that DIMIA took care to ensure that Ms Solon was accommodated in a ground floor room of a hotel close to Brisbane airport, that she had access to social workers and staff from the Philippines consulate. Even so, the evidence shows that her medical condition required special consideration.

2.37      Ms Solon was admitted to hospital on the weekend 31 March 2001 and spent until July 2001 in hospital receiving rehabilitation. Various documents indicate the extent of her injuries. At one stage, it was suggested that she was 'a possible paraplegic'. On 21 June, she was still wheel chair bound and her injures were described as 'extensive'.[45]

2.38      She was released from the rehabilitation unit on 12 July 2001 and taken into DIMIA custody at that time.[46] Even then, her state of health was poor. The discharge note provided by the hospital dated 12 July 2001 read:

Vivian walks with a 4-wheel walker for safety as she still has some gait problems and hand weakness. Vivian is independent with self-care with encouragement.[47]

2.39      On 13 July 2001, she was unable to sign the record of interview.[48] Three days later, a document recorded:

Ms Alvarez has been discharged from hospital where she was receiving rehabilitation for an injury. She uses a walking frame and has limited mobility. She is not able to write and had limited use of her hands. She is a very frail, tiny woman. Ms Alvarez has stated that she has no family in the Philippines to assist her.[49]

It noted that Ms Alvarez is in 'a difficult situation and will need assistance on her arrival'.

2.40      Mr Freedman informed the committee that from investigations they had undertaken, a few days prior to her removal, 'in the presence of Filipino community workers, including social workers and nurses, Vivian had a series of fits in which it was described to us that her eyes are rolling back into her head and she loses the ability to stand'.[50] Mr Freedman added they believe that as a result of witnessing the fits, notification was sent to representatives of the Filipino mission in Canberra.

2.41      Indeed, the written record establishes that DIMIA were aware of reports that Ms Solon had had 'spasms' and that the Philippines Deputy Head of Mission in Canberra had stated that Ms Alvarez 'was not fit to travel'.[51] It would appear that this complaint raised by the Philippines Embassy prompted DIMIA to seek medical advice in order to obtain a certificate that she was 'fit for travel'.

2.42      Ms Daniels, DIMIA, told the committee that there was no evidence on the file to indicate that a formal response to the concerns raised by the Philippines Embassy had been provided but their concerns would have been part of the trigger to seek the fitness to travel assessment.[52] Ms Daniels told the committee that on 19 July 2001, at the request of a DIMIA officer, a local doctor provided a report that she was fit to travel.[53]

2.43      The committee was concerned to hear that there was no evidence that Ms Solon had been explained her rights regarding the medical examination and asked DIMIA to provide further details on their procedures and any changes. DIMIA responded that:

Most people who are to be removed from Australia are advised in writing in advance of their removal. They will then be advised of the need to undergo a medical examination for the purposes of that removal.

The Detention Services Provider's health subcontractors will not insist that a detainee have a physical examination if the detainee is not willing to be examined. In circumstances where the detainee has refused a medical examination, a fitness to travel assessment would be based on a review of their medical file.

Departmental policy is that people are not removed from Australia without a fitness to travel assessment, which preferably includes a physical examination by a doctor.

If a DIMIA officer believes that the early notification of a removal to a detainee may pose a significant risk to the removal, and/or to the detainee's or other person's safety, notification of the removal may be deferred until just prior to the commencement of the actual removal process. In these cases the person may not be informed of the reason why they have been requested to undertake a medical examination.[54]

2.44      As to her mental well being, it is difficult to make an assessment as there appears to have been no medical advice sought. According to a statement made by her former husband, Ms Solon had been hospitalised on occasions due to a mental illness. DIMIA was not aware of this history. Even so, again on the facts before this committee, her behaviour and her circumstances clearly show a woman in need of professional assessment. On 23 April 2005, a DIMIA officer records that Ms Alvarez was 'more lucid now'.[55] A 4 May 2005 file note records that Ms Alvarez 'could not actually/specifically remember how she came to Australia'.[56] Ms Daniels told the committee that there was no record she was aware of that counselling services were provided to Ms Solon.[57] This lack of attention given to the mental health of Ms Solon itself is a damming indictment of the level of care provided to this woman.

2.45      On the facts known, she had been involved in a serious accident resulting in 'extensive' injuries requiring weeks of rehabilitation, she was destitute and without family or friends to support her, the information she was providing to officials could not be verified and accounts of her time in Australia were confused and changed over time. Furthermore, she was about to be removed from the country. It should be noted that a Press Release by the Embassy of the Philippines stated that on 16 July 2001, it instructed the Consulate 'to make representations with Immigration to give her "therapeutic counselling" and further treatment for trauma before sending her home'.[58]

Committee view

2.46      Overall, the committee concludes that DIMIA did not provide an adequate level of health care for Ms Solon before her removal.

2.47      The following section looks at DFAT's involvement in the Solon case in 2001.

DFAT involvement

2.48      During the week Ms Solon was in immigration detention, the deputy head of the Philippines Embassy raised concerns about her health with DFAT. An email by a DFAT officer dated 20 July 2001 outlined the concerns expressed by the deputy head of mission:

Vivian is due to be removed from Australia today. Hopefully everything will go smoothly and you won't get any media inquiries. However, if you do the department head of mission in Canberra, Mr Santaigo, contacted me a number of times yesterday to inform us of this case, claiming it had the potential to affect the bilateral relationship. His story was that Ms Alvarez was going to be removed from Australia and she was not fit for travel. He told me she had been in an accident and she shouldn't be moved in that condition. If she was to be removed it would not play well in the media in Manila... He demanded that we did not remove her. In fact the Philippine embassy would not be issuing travel documents...I said that if he wanted to send information I would look at it and compliance was a matter for DIMIA and Mr Ruddock. Santaigo never sent any information, but he did say that Vivian had married an Australian three years ago and it had not worked out. I contacted DIMIA, who advised me that Ms Alvarez was illegal and there is no reference on the movements register as to how she entered the country.[59]

2.49      Mr Rod Smith, First Assistant Secretary, Public Diplomacy Consular and Passports Division, DFAT, clarified that the email detailing Mr Santiago's concerns was sent by the then Philippines desk officer in the South and South-East Asia division of DFAT to the deputy head of mission in Manila and several other DFAT addressees in the embassy in Manila.[60]

2.50      Mr Smith explained that the desk officer in Canberra told the Philippines embassy that Ms Solon's health was a matter for DIMIA and they should take it up with them. He said 'this prompted the contact between DFAT and DIMIA. As I understand it, DIMIA then confirmed what they understood to be the case at the time, which was that Ms Solon was in Australia illegally. At that point—and certainly at the point when she was removed—Ms Solon was deemed fit to travel'.[61]

2.51      Mr Gilding, Assistant Secretary, Consular Branch, DFAT, said that the DFAT desk officer established with DIMIA that Ms Solon had been seen by a doctor and was fit to travel and this ameliorated the concern of the Philippines embassy and they issued her a visa later that day.[62]

Threat to the bilateral relationship

2.52      The email from the DFAT officer above shows that the deputy head of the Philippines Embassy in Canberra made representation to DIMIA that the removal of Ms Solon could damage bilateral relations between Australia and the Philippines.

2.53      Mr Freedman reported that there was no indication in the paperwork received by him as to what information was passed up the chain in DFAT despite the mention of the threat to bilateral relations.[63]

2.54      The committee asked whether DFAT was concerned about the suggestion that bilateral relations could be damaged and what action they took. Mr Smith replied:

It was not a concern that was put particularly strongly. It was something that we took on board and I think it was the sort of thing that led to the further contact between DFAT and DIMIA to ensure that all of the proper steps were being followed—in other words, that DIMIA were aware of the embassy's concerns and were taking them into account in managing the issue.[64]

2.55      In response to whether this was brought to the attention of senior executives or any action taken, Mr Smith stated that the email was copied to other more senior people in the department, so they would have been aware of the matter. He stated further:

I am not sure that the issue required a judgement one way or the other that it would cause damage to the bilateral relationship. What we had was an expression of concern from the Philippines embassy, which we would obviously take on board in our involvement, our engagement on this issue. That was very much part of it.[65]

2.56      Mr Smith told the committee that the Philippines Embassy was invited to provide further information on the nature of their concerns but they did not.[66]

Committee view

2.57      The committee cannot understand why DFAT did not take this matter more seriously.

The name Solon and a missing person's inquiry 2001

2.58      The committee has discussed the checks undertaken by DIMIA to establish Ms Solon's identity prior to her removal. It now considers this matter in connection with a missing persons investigation taking place around the time of her removal.

2.59      On 19 July 2001, DIMIA dealt with a missing person's inquiry looking for movement records for Vivian Solon and Young. Ms Daniels explained that the request was only for a movements check. The response to that inquiry was that a person by that name last entered Australia in September 1993 and had not left since. She stated that 'to all intents and purposes, at that time it was a different person from the one, Ms Alvarez, who was about to be removed'.[67]

2.60      The records note, however, that the DIMIA response showed Vivian Alvarez Solon Young with the correct birth date but there was no connection made that this was the same person who was removed a day later. Ms Daniels reiterated that the missing person's request was only for a movements check which provided biodata about the person and her last movement into Australia.[68]

2.61      The committee further questioned the movements check process. Ms Daniels told the committee that it would seem this was a purely factual inquiry about whether Ms Solon had left the country. She added that if there had been additional contextual information provided, current procedures would ensure that further investigative work was undertaken.[69]

Other checks

2.62      The committee questioned whether any contact with the Australian Federal Police or Queensland Police had been made regarding how Ms Solon obtained her injuries, prior to her removal. Ms Daniels replied that there was no evidence to indicate that contact had been made.[70] The committee considers Ms Solon's injuries should have been reported to the police to ensure that any possible criminal acts towards Ms Solon were investigated.

Committee view

2.63      The committee has already commented on the inadequacies of the checks made by DIMIA in attempting to establish Ms Solon's identity. It is of the view that had DIMIA pursued the matter of Ms Solon's accident and uncertain identity with the relevant police authorities, a connection may have been made between this unidentified woman found wandering the streets after having been seriously injured and the woman reported missing. The committee will never know whether such action would have led to linking the two persons but the assumption is plausible. The Ombudsman may well have investigated this matter thoroughly. The committee awaits his findings.

Conclusion

2.64      The committee is concerned that potential lines of inquiry to establish Ms Solon's identity were not followed up by the compliance area. Despite providing a number of names to DIMIA officers in the period preceding her removal, it is clear from DIMIA's records that Ms Solon stated on a number of occasions that she was an Australian citizen, had been married and had a passport. This would have opened up lines of inquiry which evidence indicates were not pursued. Instead, there appears to have been assumptions made regarding Vivian's background which cast a slur on her character and possibly influenced the diligence applied to her case.

2.65      The decision to remove Ms Solon seems to have been the only option pursued with any vigour. The investigation to establish her identity was clearly inadequate and her statements that she was an Australian citizen appear to have been disregarded.

2.66      The decision to remove a person from Australia is significant and one that the committee believes should not be left solely to a middle ranking DIMIA officer but should be referred to a more senior officer for review of the decision and file. The committee believes that DIMIA failed to act diligently in its efforts to establish Ms Solon's identity and overall failed in their duty of care toward her. There is no doubt that Ms Solon had requirements for her physical and mental well being which needed to be taken into consideration by DIMIA. At the time of her discharge from hospital, the hospital noted she required a four-wheel walker and had weakness in her hands. In summary, the committee finds that the procedures adopted in making the decision to remove Ms Alvarez from Australia were inappropriate in that:

• the process followed to establish or verify her identity lacked rigour and it would seem that once the assumption was made that Ms Solon was an undocumented arrival in Australia, little serious attempt was made to test this assumption despite Ms Solon's insistence that she was an Australian citizen and had married an Australian;
• a relatively junior officer made the determination that Ms Solon was an unlawful non-citizen (the committee was pleased to hear that removals are now signed off by SES officers);
• the process in determining Ms Solon's immigration status lacked transparency and accountability and the documentation accompanying this determination was inadequate;
• there were inadequate safeguards to ensure that Ms Solon's legal rights were protected;
• greater attention should have been shown toward the physical and mental well being of Ms Solon considering that she had suffered a serious trauma, was destitute, could not establish her identity, was confused and was about to be removed; and
• no attempt was made to ensure that any possible criminal act against Ms Solon such as assault or a road accident was thoroughly investigated by police—such an investigation may have brought to light more details about her identity and facilitated a connection between a missing persons investigation and Ms Solon.

2.67      The committee is surprised that the mention of a threat to bilateral relations did not appear to have been acted on by DFAT with any degree of seriousness. Senior officers were made aware in Manila of the concerns but it would seem not in Canberra. It appears strange, and is of concern, to the committee that something that may impact on bilateral relations would not have been brought to the attention of senior management in Canberra and the Minister. DFAT's explanation that the concerns did not warrant a judgement and they were waiting for more information did not allay the committee's concern.

2.68      It is clear that the committee's preliminary findings anticipate the need for change in DIMIA's approach to those suspected of being in the country unlawfully and the process used by DIMIA to determine a person's immigration status. The committee awaits the Ombudsman's report, which it will consider closely, before making any final recommendations.

2.69      Chapter three examines the events and actions which took place when Ms Solon arrived in the Philippines.

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page