Where do the major parties stand on introducing time limits on immigration detention?

The Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Greens both support introducing time limits on immigration detention.

However, there are differences, with the ALP advocating for a “90-day rule” which would require that refugee status determinations are concluded within 90 days from the time of application. This is not a new policy, but was part of the Migration Act until 2014 when it was removed under the Abbott Government by then Immigration Minister Scott Morrison.

The Greens offer a more robust policy that would introduce a legislated seven day limit for onshore detention.

The Liberal Party has not committed to introducing limits on time spent in immigration detention. Under the Abbott/Morrison Governments, the average time spent in immigration detention has risen from under 100 days to 689 days, compared to the US, UK, Canada, Germany and France which all average between 20 and 60 days.

Where do the major parties stand on ending offshore detention and processing of people seeking asylum in Australia?

The Greens are the only major party that support ending offshore detention and processing in PNG and Nauru, bringing refugees to safety and freedom in Australia.

The ALP and Liberals do not support ending offshore detention and processing, despite 14 refugees dying as a result of this failed and cruel policy.

Furthermore, in late 2021 the Morrison Government signed a memorandum of understanding with Nauru to establish an enduring regional processing capability.

Where do the major parties stand on abolishing Temporary Protection Visas (TPV)/Safe Haven Enterprise Visas (SHEV) and providing permanent protection?

The Liberals are the only major party that supports Temporary Protection Visas (TPV) and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas (SHEV).

Both the Greens and ALP seek to abolish TPV/SHEV allowing some 19,000 refugees on these visas the ability to rebuild their lives.

Where do the major parties stand on providing all refugees who sought asylum by sea and were subjected to offshore detention a clear plan for permanent resettlement, including those currently in PNG, Nauru and Australia? Noting that deals with the US and New Zealand will still leave hundreds without a resettlement pathway.

The Greens are the only major party that has a clear plan for resettlement of all refugees who sought asylum by sea, including those subjected to offshore detention, offering resettlement in Australia.

The ALP has an unclear position, supporting resettlement pathways such as New Zealand and the US deal as well as claiming to “explore options other than indefinite detention, including third-country resettlement.”

While the Liberals have committed to resettlement pathways in New Zealand and the US there is no plan for permanent resettlement of all refugees.

Where do the major parties stand on the abolition of the 'Fast-Track' process and providing people seeking asylum a fair independent application process with appropriate legal representation?

The Liberals introduced and continue to support the ‘Fast Track’ process. It was intended to give people who sought asylum by sea less time to make their claims for protection as well as reduce the level of independent oversight, as a result of people being denied the right to present their case before a tribunal. Instead, cases are heard before a subsidiary body of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA).

Similar to abolishing TPV/SHEV both the Greens and ALP support abolishing the 'Fast-Track' process and reforming the current failed system. This includes the abolishment of the IAA as well as the creation of an independent, fair and funded review tribunal.

Where do the major parties stand on the abolition of Ministerial Directive 80 which deprioritises family reunion for people who sought asylum by sea?

The Morrison Government in 2018 issued Direction 80, signed by then Immigration Minister David Coleman, which arbitrarily deprioritised the family reunion applications of people who sought asylum by sea. This followed a series of similar ministerial directives made by Coleman’s predecessor, Scott Morrison. Under this rule, it is functionally impossible for people who sought asylum by sea to reunite with their families.

The Greens have committed to no family unit being forcibly separated by Australian immigration assessment processes and stopping the deprioritisation of family reunion for those who sought asylum by sea.

The ALP has issued no clear statement of its position concerning the deprioritisation of family reunion for those who sought asylum by sea, as mandated in Ministerial Directive 80. The ALP did not respond to emails seeking clarification in the relevant timeframe

Where do the major parties stand on guaranteeing mainstream social support (including housing, Centrelink, right to work/study, access to education support and Medicare) for all people seeking asylum for the duration of the application process, regardless of how they arrived? This includes people on Final Departure Bridging Visas

Both the Greens and ALP support providing mainstream social support to all refugees. The Liberals have not committed to this. Under the Morrison Government refugees are denied access to Centrelink and housing support and have limited access to health care, education support and work rights.

Where do the major parties stand on increasing the size of the Refugee Humanitarian Program (RHP)?

The Liberals are the only major party that is not committed to increasing Australia’s annual Refugee Humanitarian Program (RHP). This is despite Australia’s refugee intake being at a fifty-year low. However, the Morrison Government has committed to providing 16,500 additional emergency places for people fleeing Afghanistan, as well as additional intake from Ukraine. Yet these fall outside the annual intake, which in the most recent budget was capped at 13,750.

Both the Greens and ALP support increasing Australia’s annual refugee intake under the Refugee Humanitarian Program (RHP). The Greens support increasing this to 50,000 per year. The ALP supports an increase to 27,000 places per year.

Where do the major parties stand on abolishing the ban on refugees registered with UNHCR in Indonesia from resettling in Australia?

In 2013, then Immigration Minister Morrison issued a ban on all refugees registered with UNHCR in Indonesia from resettling in Australia. This has resulted in 13,000 refugees in Indonesia being denied healthcare, the right to work or other support, with no prospect of resettlement in Australia.

ALP candidates have individually supported ending this ban and allowing refugees registered with UNHCR in Indonesia to resettle in Australia. However, there are limited public party statements supporting this position.

The Greens are committed to allowing refugees registered with UNHCR in Indonesia to resettle in Australia.