1988-89 Cabinet Paper 6164

[1]
CABINET-IN -CONFIDENCE
Copy
C A B I N E T
43
M I N U T E
Canberra, 6 December 1988
Amended No. 12103

Submission No. 6164
Government Response to the Report of

the Committee to Advise on
Australia's Immigration Policies
(CAAIP)
The Cabinet :(a)
agreed to the Minister for Immigration, Local

Government and Ethnic Affairs (the Minister)
making a Statement to Parliament along the lines
of that at Attachment A to the Submission;
(b)
noted the summary of public reaction to the

CAAIP Report at Attachment C to the Submission;
(c)
noted the Inter-Departmental Committee

conclusions on the Matrix of recommendations at
Attachment D to the Submission;
(d)
agreed, with minor modifications, to make

available to Parliament the Government response
which appears in the Matrix;
(e)
noted the discussion of immigration objectives

at Attachment E to the Submission; and
... /2
This document is the property of the Australian Government and is not to be copied or reproduced
CABINET -IN-CONFIDENCE
[2]
2.
Amended No. 12103 (contd)

(f)
endorsed the broad approach contained in the 10

principles for immigration policy set out in the
CAAIP Report, subject to the minor amendments
outlined in paragraph 5 of Attachment F to the
Submission.
The Cabinet further agreed that :-
2.
(a)
the Family Migration ceiling be set at 71,000

for 1989-90;
(b)
the Economic Migration ceiling be set at 54,000

for 1989-90;
(c)
the Humanitarian Migration ceiling be set at

14,000 including a 1,500 contingency reserve for
1989-90;
(d)
the Special Migration Category be allocated an

indicative planning level of 1,000 for 1989-90;
(e)
the Self-Supporting Retiree sub-category be

abolished;
(f)
the total program for 1989-90 as derived from

the component streams be 140,000;
(g)
Grant of Resident Status (GORS) be retained and

where analogous with Migrant Entry categories
the identical criteria for assessing applicants
be applied;
(h)
each GORS category be attributed to the

appropriate Migrant Entry category for migration
program planning purposes;
and
... /3
CABIN ET-1 N-CON Fl DENCE
[3]
CABINET-IN-CONFIDENCE
3.

(i)
an additional 5 ASL ($0.2 million) in 1988-89,

20 ASL ($1.1 million) in 1989-90 and 20 ASL
thereafter (for each of 1990-91 and 1991-92 at
$1.0 million per annum) be allocated to GORS
processing to ensure that the integrity in
selection is maintained.
3.
The Cabinet also agreed that :(a)
an Economic Migration program level be set each

year in the light of changing needs of the
economy;
(b)
Economic Migration be divided into two streams:(i)
an employer/business-driven targeted
stream with no points test and no capping;
and
(ii)
a residual broad-based labour force

enhancement stream with a points test;
(c)
the targeted migration stream comprise four

categories :(i)
Tripartite Negotiated Arrangements;
(ii)
Individual Employer Nominations;
(iii) Business Migration;

(iv)
and
Special Skills Migration;
and
... /4
[4]
4.
(d)
the present Occupational Shares System be

included as part of the Independent Migration
category in the broad-based labour force
enhancement stream.
4.
The Cabinet also agreed :(a)
that a points test be differentially applied to

Extended Family and Independent Migration as
separate streams to address the competing social
and economic objectives of the categories;
(b)
that the points test as detailed at Figure 1 of

Attachment I to the Submission comprise the
following factors :(i )
employability with skill, age and language

as sub-factors;
(ii)
relationship;
(iii) citizenship;
(c)
(iv)
settlement;
(v)
location;
and
that the factor of employability be used in

assessing Independent migrants and factors of
employability (minus language), relationship,
citizenship, settlement and location be used in
assessing Extended Family migrants;
and
... /5
Amended portion
[5]
5.

(d)
that a floating pass mark be used to manage the

points tested component of the program;
(e)
that the level of additional funding be settled

between the Minister for Finance and the
Minister for Immigration, Local Government and
Ethnic Affairs, with unresolved issues to be
settled by Cabinet;
(f)
and
to note that an increased Extended Family

intake, without English testing but with balance
of family, will result in net additional costs.
The Cabinet also agreed : -
5.
(a)
to note the useful contribution of the work of

the National Population Council in developing a
model of reform for the recognition of overseas
qualifications;
(b)
that this model, together with other related

inquiries into the issue should be referred to
an interdepartmental committee (IDC) to prepare
a report for the Structural Adjustment Committee
by early 1989;
(c)
that this IDC should examine overseas skills in

the context of developing a national system of
competency-based skills recognition;
and
.. /6
CABIN T-IN-CONFIDENCE
[6]

6.
(d)
that this IDC should examine the establishment

of a Council with responsibility for overseas
skills recruitment.
6.
that parents be processed in the untested Family

Migration category only where the balance of
their children are resident in Australia (i.e.
that parents must have more children lawfully
and permanently resident in Australia than in
any single country or at least an equal number
permanently resident in Australia as overseas);
(b)
that this requirement would count all children

of the parent and his/her spouse irrespective of
degree of economic or social dependence;
(c)
that policy on Assurances of Support be

tightened such that Assurances of Support extend
to the payment of Unemployment Benefit (UB) and
apply to all parents selected under the balance
of family criterion and are enforced for five
years;
(d)
that the operation of Assurances of Support, the

placement of bonds on immigrants, and the
feasibility of giving bonus points under the
Points Test for applicants willing to meet their
English language training costs, be referred to
an appropriate House of Representatives
Committee for examination;
.
Government an d .IS not to b e cop1eu
. ~ .or/?
This document is the property of the Australian
repro d uced
[7]
7.
(e)
to note that these changes will realise net

savings of $6.3 million in 1989-90, rising to
$25.3 million in 1991-92 and require an
additional 6.2 ASL in 1988-89, rising to 16.8
ASL in 1990-91;
(f)
and
to note that extension of Assurances of Support

to recover payments of UB will result in net
savings of $1.23 million (and an additional 4.3
ASL) in 1989-90, $5.07 million (and an
additional 7.8 ASL) in 1990-91 and $7.78 million
(and an additional 7.8 ASL) in 1991-92.
7.
to maintain the Refugee/Special Humanitarian

Entry Program (SHP) numbers at the current
program level;
(b)
to reject involvement by domestic community

agencies in overseas selection of refugee/SHP
cases;
(c)
that the Government develop an emergency rescue

program to provide speedy acceptance of refugees
and people still in their own country who are
confronting immediate persecution or life
threatening situations;
. /8
CABIN ET-1 N-CO FIDENCE
[8]
8.
(d)
to further consider a limited utilisation of the

overseas affiliations of church organisations
which may be well placed through their networks
to identify some cases requiring urgent rescue
from persecution;
(e)
to note that, however, there are a number of

sensitivities which would need to be addressed
about the parameters applying to any agency
involvement, if it is to occur;
(f)
to retain and enhance present Determination of

Refugee Status procedures.
To this end, an
additional 1 ASL ($53,470) and $50,000 for

support and automated technology be provided in
1988-89 to plan and commence enhanced frontier
processing, with a total of 8 ASL ($428,000) and
$120,000 for support and automated technology to
be provided in 1989-90 to fully implement
enhancement of frontier processing;
that 8 ASL
($428,000) together with $40,000 for support
functions be provided in 1990-91 and 1991-92 to

maintain enhanced frontier processing;
(g)
to retain the legislative provision to halt

refugee claimants at the frontier and not to
admit them to Australia until their claims to
refugee status are decided coupled with an
enhancement of frontier processing procedures;
.. /9
Amended portion
[9]

9.
(h)
to the establishment of a senior officer (SES

Level 3) in DILGEA as Principal Adviser for
Refugee and International Affairs who will be
assigned to co-ordinate responses to
refugee and international migration matters,
requiring additional resources of 0.5 ASL and
$0.05 million in 1988-89, 1 ASL and $0.09
million in 1989-90 and subsequent years;
(i)
and
to the drafting of letters that would be issued

by DILGEA relating to persons who do not have a
valid national travel document, or are
undocumented who are refused entry, or are about
to be deported.
These letters would be issued
in a form consistent with Annex 9 to the

Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944
(the Chicago Convention).
8.
The Cabinet also agreed that :(a)
DILGEA concentrate its settlement programs on

the needs-based provision of services for
immigrants, with the aim of converting migration
program objectives into related social and
economic outcomes; and
. /10
[10]

10.
(b)
in accordance with this aim, DILGEA re-focus its

settlement activities, paying particular
attention to targeting its programs to priority
needs of the annual intake associated with the
circumstances of their migration; clarification
of DILGEA's strategic role in settlement through
phasing out duplications with other agencies
having regard to their access and equity
commitments;
and the appropriateness of cost
recovery measures for its programs.
9.
The Cabinet also agreed to :(a)
a two-tier system of review involving statutory

first-tier review by a unit within DILGEA,
followed by application to
*
*
*
a reconstituted,
decision-making, statutory-based Immigration

Review Panel (IRP);
(b)
that the IRP be modified to improve

professionalism, through the appointment of new
personnel, the provision of a clear framework of
regulations, and allowing appellants the right
to appear before the panels in person;
(c)
that the net additional cost of the system will

be settled between the Minister for Finance and
the Minister for Immigration, Local Government
and Ethnic Affairs;
and
/11
Arne tle
T-IN-CONFIDENCE
[11]
CABINET-IN-CON Fl DENCE
11.
(d)
note that the Minister for Justice is bringing

forward jointly with the Minister a separate
Submission on access to legal aid which will
canvass, inter-alia, the limitation of legal aid
to seek administrative or judicial review of
decisions on immigration status to citizens and
permanent residents of Australia;
(e)
and
request the Ministers to accelerate preparation

of the Submission referred to in sub-paragraph
(d) above with a view to its consideration by
Cabinet as early as possible in the new year.
10.
maintain deportation orders as decisions of

administrative character:
(b)
provide $100,000 supplementation in 1988-89 for

a consultancy project on options for upgrading
detention facilities:
(c)
consider funding for Detention Centre

improvements in the 1989-90 budget process: and
(d)
note that the proposed seizure of assets of

deportees will defray the cost of detention by
producing revenue estimated at $0.1 million in
1988-89 and $0.2 million in a full year
. /12
CABINET- N-CONFIDENCE
[12]

12.
The Cabinet also agreed to amend the Migration
11.
Act 1958 ('the Act') to:-
(a)
provide for a two-tier review system:
statutory
first-tier review by a unit within DILGEA,

followed by statutory second-tier review by a
reconstituted IRP;
(b)
empower the Governor-General to make regulations

setting up the first-tier internal review
including the operation and procedures of the
first tier;
(c)
empower the Governor-General to make regulations

prescribing decisions to be reviewable, standing
requirements applicable, the fees involved and
whether review is determinative or
recommendatory;
(d)
exclude from IRP review security decisions and

security elements of otherwise reviewable
decisions;
(e)
empower the Minister to issue conclusive

certificates excluding IRP review on grounds of
security, defence or international relations;
(f)
provide that all prescribed decisions are

reviewable automatically by the IRP only after
determination by the first-tier internal review
without any special leave requirement;
.. /13
Amended portion
This document is the property of the Australian Govemment and is not to be copied or reproduced
[13]
CABINET-IN-CON Fl DEN CE
13.
(g)
insert a provision where both tiers of review

are urged and empowered to determine all
reviewable decisions arising under the Act (that
are in dispute between the parties to the
review) by requiring the applicants to make any
or all additional applications (which they wish
to pursue) within a specified date;
by
requiring DILGEA to decide any such applications

(if made);
and by dealing with matters in
dispute (arising following such decisions) with

the original grounds of the application
for review in that tier;
(h)
allow for regulations to be made specifying :(i)
migration entry categories;
(ii)
policy criteria entitlements/restrictions for each

category;
(iii) decisions, which are presently made under

statutory discretions (e.g.
visa/permit/deportation) to be made under
regulations (these discretions would cease
to have effect - by proclamation - to
coincide with the making of regulations);
(iv)
the mechanism for 'rolling over'

applications in the pool (i.e. neither
qualified or rejected under the prevailing
pass and failure marks) and for their
ultimate approval or rejection;
and
CABI ET-IN-CONFIDENCE ..
114
[14]
CABINET-I -CON Fl DENCE

14.
(v)
charge and recovery of fees in respect of

review for internal review, with a higher
rate for IRP review;
and to remit, refund
or waive such fees;

(i)
allow the Minister by notice in the Gazette to

prescribe the points applicable to each factor
in the points system, the qualifying score and
the failure score (for each 'points tested'
category referred to in the Regulations) for
eligibility for entry;
(j)
remove the discretion to deport under section

(s.) 18 and provide for automatic departurefailing which it would be mandatory to order
deportation where permits have been denied or
not sought.
Once a person was ordered deported,
that person would be ineligible for the grant of

a permit while he/she remained in Australia;
(k)
provide that the Secretary for DILGEA rather

than the Minister is the principal
decision-maker (except for deportation on
security/defence grounds) with the Secretary for
DILGEA being empowered to delegate his/her
powers and functions under the Act;
(1)
empower the Minister to give decision-makers

directions as to general policy matters;
... /15
[15]

15.
(m)
empower the Minister to direct that receiving or

processing of applications by DILGEA is to cease
- until a nominated date - in respect of
selected specific categories set out in the
Regulations (thereby suspending any obligation
to receive or process applications);
(n)
empower the Minister to substitute in the public

interest his/her decision for an IRP decision
which was unfavourable to an applicant, subject
to the Minister tabling a Statement of Reasons
in the Parliament, and subject to considerations
of privacy;
(o)
allow for release from custody under s.38 and

s.39 on conditions imposed by authorised
officers.
Conditions would include taking of
securities;
(p)
allow for seizure (and sale) of property of

persons detained/deported to offset debts owed
to the Commonwealth resulting from the
detention/deportation;
(q)
require applicants for GORS under s.6A(l)(b) to

hold valid temporary entry permits;
(r)
provide for the issue of letters

consistent with Annex 9 to the Chicago
Convention to a person refused entry or to a
deportee;
0 0 0/16
CAB I ET-1 N-CON Fl DENCE
[16]

16.
(s)
provide that the liability for an Assurance of

Support continue notwithstanding that the
person(s) covered by the Assurance acquired
Australian citizenship;
(t)
allow the Governor-General to make regulations

concerning the management of detention centres
and to regulate the rights of detainees and the
powers of officers (Australian Protective
Service Officers);
(u)
and
provide for the amendments to come into force on

a date to be proclaimed.
12.
the creation of a Bureau of Immigration Research

in March 1989 at a cost of an extra $0.95
million and 5 ASL in 1988-89, $4.15 million and
19 ASL in 1989-90 and $4.0 million and 19 ASL in
subsequent years;
(b)
note that there will be savings if the Minister

decides to subsequently locate the Bureau in
Canberra;
(c)
and
note that the Minister shall be seeking funds

for a public information campaign in the 1989-90
new policy context.
. . /17
[17]
17.
13.
The Cabinet noted that :(a)
the resource implications of the recommendations

are dealt with at each relevant attachment,
subject to the modifications made by Cabinet and
noted above;
(b)
the net additional cost of the recommendations,

where not specified above, will be settled
between the Minister for Finance and the
Minister for Immigration, Local Government and
Ethnic Affairs;
(c)
the Department of Immigration, Local Government

and Ethnic Affairs estimated the total net
savings of the package in 1989-90 dollar terms
to be $92 million;
(d)
in establishing the resources platform from

which the response to CAAIP is to be delivered,
a $4.6 million shortfall in revenue from
migration applications is expected in 1988-89
because of a reduced application rate;
(e)
and
further Submissions arising directly

out of Cabinet's consideration of this
Submission may need to draw upon the savings the
Minister is now proposing.
14.
The Cabinet also noted the views of the Caucus
Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Committee at

Attachment T to the Submission.
This document is the property of the Australian Govemment and is no&
CABINET-IN-CONFI
ec
c'Opi~
o Cabinet
[18]
CORRIGENDUM TO
FOR CABINET
?_1?4 .
Submtssion No . .
Copy N'O - .""::. "":":
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

ON AUSTRALIA'S IMMIGRATION POLICIES (CAAIP)
Title
Minister
Senator the Hon. Robert Ray, Minister for Immigration, Local

Government and Ethnic Affairs
Purpose/Issues
Please replace existing pages 54, 57, 58, 59, 69, 76, 91, 92,
93, 94, 102, 115, 116, 128, 129, 132, 138, 139, 140, 141,
142, 143, 144, 156 and 157
with new pages 54, 57, 58, 59, 69, 76, 91, 92, 93, 94, 102,
115, 116, 128, 129, 132, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144,
156 and 157 attached. The changes have been sidelined.
Please insert attached page 76(a).
Relation o
existing p ILcy ' '
Sensitivity /Criticism
Legislation
involved
ency:
..... rtical/significant
dates
(~
J
sultation:
Ministers/Depts
consulted
Is there
agreement?
Timing/handling of
announcement
Cost
Fin Yr (
Fin Yr (
Fin Yr (
CABINET -IN-CONFIDENCE
54
[19]
ATTACHMENT G
PROGRAM SIZE AND COMPOSITION

RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
I recommend that Cabinet agree that:
(a) the Family Migration ceiling be set at 69,000 for 1989/90;
(b) the Economic Migration ceiling be set at 56,000 for 1989/90;
(c) the Humanitarian Migration ceiling be set at 14,000 including
a 1,500 contingency reserve for 1989/90;
(d) the Special Migration Category be allocated an indicative
planning level of 1,000 for 1989/90;
(e) the Self-Supporti.lg Retiree sub category be abolished;
(f) the total program for 1989/90 as derived from the component
streams be 140,000;
(g) Grant of Resident Status (GORS) be retained and where
analogous with Migrant Entry categories identical criteria for
assessing applicants be applied;
(h) each GORS category be attributed to the appropriate Migrant
Entry category for migration program planning purposes;
(i) an additional 5 ASL ($0.2m) in 1988/89, 20 ASL ( $1.1m) in
1989/90 and 20 ASL thereafter (for each of 1990/91 and 1991/92 at
$1.0m per annum) be allocated to GORS processing to ensure that
integrity in selection is maintained.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
CAAIP recommended a gross intake of 150,000 for the triennium
1988/89 to 1990/91, combining visa issue overseas and grant of
resident status in Australia, and that the composition be derived
from this figure, under three migration categories: Family
Migration, Refugee and Humanitarian Migration and Open Economic
Migration. The first would be demand-driven with numbers expected
to reach 40,000. The second would be set at 15,000, a 1,000
increase on the 1988/89 program ceiling. The third would be the
remainder - 95,000. CAAIP is criticised as lacking a convincing
f or i~s program. ?here have oeen calls =or eacn
component to be argued separately and the program to be justified
through a process of accretion.
3.
An NPC Expert Working Party was appointed following CAAIP to
advise on selection systems. It has proposed a program structure
based on three streams of migration: Humanitarian and the two major
streams of Family and Skill, as illustrated in Figure 1. The
Working Party made no recommendation on the size of these streams
but supported the principle that the total program level should be
derived from the individual components. It put forward the
ra~lonale
57
[20]
ATTACHMENT G
purposes. For example, GORS approvals for spouse, child or aged

parent will be attributed to the Family Migration component of the
Program and so on.
14. Concern has been expressed about the scope offered by the
existence of GORS for queue jumping and circumvention of policy.
15. The perceived problem of queue jumping should be addressed in
terms of the circumvention of both procedures and policy .
Procedures are circumvented in that GORS is quicker that Migrant
Entry and offers the applicant the advantage of awaiting an outcome
in Australia. In the majority of cases, however, there is no
circumvention of policy, although this may occur indirectly as
persons who would be unlikely candidates for Migrant Entry can,
through their residence in Australia, establish alternative claims
to residence.
16. Of most concern is that abuses are known to occur, notably
through contrived marriages and de facto relationships. Given the
current level of resources, most cases cannot be readily pursued
where doubt exists as to their genuineness. Numbers are not
thought to be large but significant enough to warrant a more
resources-intensive approach to ensure that the integrity of the
Migration Program is maintained.
17. It is also proposed that the S6A(1)(b) of the Migration Act,
which provides for grant of resident status on the grounds of
marriage, be amended to require applicants to hold valid temporary
entry permits. The same requirement already applies to all other
classes of GORS applicants excepting those seeking territorial
asylum. Such an amendment would provide a further consideration
where a marriage appeared to be contrived or had been entered into
after a protracted illegal stay in Australia .
CONSULTATION COMMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
18. Finance cons~ders ~ha~ a l ower ~arget than the proposed
program size of 140,000 should be set in view of the immediate
demand pressures flowing from the immigration program.
19. Finance is concerned that, in effect, the independent category
is a residual, and considers that the greater economic focus given
to the migration program as a result of CD 11196 on the 1988-89
program should be at least maintained.
20. Consistent with CM 11631 and CM 12033, Finance considers that
the additional resources requested to reduce abuses under the GORS
arrangements should be considered in the 1989-90 portfolio targets
CABINET-IN-CON Fl DENCE
58
[21]
ATTACHMENT G
context which was agreed to as a means to resolve minor new policy

issues. Provision of supplementation at this time without offsets
would result in this portfolio receiving preferential treatment.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
21. DEET agrees that each component size of migration program
should be agreed separately with some consideration given to the
overall economic impact of the total migrant intake level. The
economic component needs to be set each year in the light of
changing needs in the economy. DEET however does not support the
expected drop in the economic category for 1989-90 of 4,000 and
considers that the size of the economic category should be at least
as large as the family migration category.
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY
22. The whole approach to population policies implicitly assumes
that the only variable is the net immigration intake. In spite of
conventional wisdom there may well be areas where the Australian
birthrate could be influenced by eliminating disincentives to have
children. This aspect of population policy has not been given
adequate attention in the Australian debate.
23. In addition, there is little in the Submission about the
longer-term availability of potential migrants overseas. It seems
to assume that, because there is a great deal of interest at
present, this situation will continue. With the ageing of the
population in most traditional migrant source countries, there may
well be insufficient migrant applicants to meet the program levels
in the longer-term, even if the size of the intake remains less
than that proposed by CAAIP. Ministers should have before them
information on future sources of migrants when the question of
future intakes is considered.
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TECHNOLOGY AND COMMERCE
24. To achieve a higher skill profile of migrants the Department
favours a shift in the balance between the Extended Family and
Independent categories towards the latter. As indicated at
Attachment I of the Submission (paragraph 13 page 72) the skill
profile in the Independent category is noticeably higher than in
the Extended Family category. The balance between the two
categories should reflect the high priority of skills in the
selection process.
59
ATTACHMENT G
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

25. DIR believes that the approach to future immigration policy
set out in the Cabinet Submission gives insufficient emphasis to
economic immigration.
[22]
[23]
ATTACHMENT I
69
POINTS TEST
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
I recommend that Cabinet agree:
(a)
that a points test be differentially applied to Extended
Family and Independent Migration as separate streams to address the

competing social and economic objectives of the categories;
(b)
that the points test comprise the following factors:
(i)
employability, with skill, age and language as sub-factors;

(ii) relationship; (iii) citizenship;
(iv) settlement; (v) location
(detailed in Figure 1);

(c)
that factor (i) to be used in assessing Independent migrants
and factors (i) (minus language),
( ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) be used
in assessing Extended Family migrants;

(d)
that a floating pass mark be used to manage the points tested
component of the program;

(e)
to note that a more sophisticated and complex selection system
will require additional funding as follows to operate:

ASL
(f)
$m
1988-89
33
3.6
1989-90
58
7.4
1990-91
44
5.4
1991-92
32
4.6
to note that an increased Extended Family intake, without
English testing but with balance of family, will result in net

additional costs of $0.15m in 1988-89, $11.51m in 1989-90, $25.55m
in 1990-91 and $24.55m in 1991-92.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
CAAIP recommended a points test with the following factors in
order of weighting: skill, entrepreneurship, age, language,

kinship, links with Australia and attributes of spouse.
However,
CAAIP did not detail the specific parameters or weightings to be

used.
This task was referred to an Expert Working Party from my
advisory body, the National Population Council.

3.
The Council Working Party has developed a points test which
can be applied in three different ways to address the range of

social and economic objectives underlying the Extended Family and
Independent categories.
4.
The system has been developed to be:
(a)
flexible - to allow Governments to vary the mix and profile
according to changing needs; and
76
[24]
ATTACHMENT I
skills content of the kinship factor. The skill content of these

two categories is also dependent upon their overall size. The
larger kinship category would have the effect of reducing the
overall skill level. DEET has difficulties with the practical
application of allocating separate points for designated growth
areas. The measurement of these areas is difficult and DEET does
not consider it to be a relevant factor for migration selection.
30. The Department favours option (a) (paragraph 11) where the
Extended Family and Independent categories compete against a common
set of criteria on the points system, with additional points for
kinship. This option would lead to a higher skill profile of
migrants than the option propesed in the Draft Submission.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
31. Treasury accepts the need to balance social and economic
objectives in determining the immigration program, but considers
that greater emphasis should be given to the employability and
skills composition of the intake and the ability of the program to
meet labour market needs:
(a) greater weight should be given to skills in short supply in
the points system for the independent migration category (the
proposal gives such skills virtually no weight, with additional
points being limited to 5 and then only for skills requiring a
degree or trade certificate);
(b) in view of the very high correlation between unemployment
among migrants and English language ability, language skills should
be included in the employability component of the points system for
extended family migration and its weighting should be increased for
independent migration;
(c) under the proposal, the proportion of the total intake with
family in Australia is estimated to increase from 64 per cent under
presen~ policy t o a bou~ 70 per cent ( Attachmen~ =, paragraph 14).
It would be preferable, in current circumstances of persistent
skill shortages in a number of sectors of the economy, to give
greater weight in the overall balance of the program to skills
migration, either by reducing the extended family component
(possibly by excluding more remote relations such as nephews and
nieces and requiring them to be considered as part of the
independent category), or by expanding the overall size of the
program.
76(a)
[25]
ATTACHMENT I
DEPARTMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET

32. Although PM&C believes the immigration intake should have the
h i ghest feasible standard in economic terms, the department
supports the dual stream approach - option (c) - to reconciling the
tension between purely skilled immigration and extended family
immigration. The separation of the extended family and independent
immigration categories, while still selecting primarily on the
basis of skills, will maintain the skill level of the immigration
program while recognising (and containing) strong community demands
for continued extended family migration.
33. This option has clear presentational advantages particularly
in terms of Australians from migrant backgrounds.
34. The extent of the skill trade-off will depend on the relative
numbers in the overall family and economic categories. The
economic focus of the immigration program could be further enhanced
by altering the balance between the two. This could be done
annually in setting the migration program for the year.
35 . The absence of an English ability criterion for extended
family applicants may be seen as i nconsistent with the economic
objectives of the program. The inclusion of a strict English
proficiency criterion could however be seen as a country of origin
bias.
36. If points for language ability are to be awarded i n the
extended family stream any perceived country of origin bias could
be avoided by awarding higher points to people with English plus
another language. Alternatively a more flexible test of English
language ability could be used.
CABINE -1 -CONFIDENCE
91
[26]
ATTACHMENT K
FAMILY MIGRATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
I recommend that Cabinet:
(a) agree that parents be processed in the untested Family
Migration category only where the balance of their children are
resident in Australia(ie. that parents must have more children
lawfully and permanently resident in Australia than in any single
other country or at least an equal number lawfully and permanently
resident in Australia as overseas);
(b) agree that this requirement would count all children of the
parent and his/her spouse irrespective of degree of economic or
social dependence;
(c) agree that policy on Assurances of Support be tightened such
that Assurances of Support extend to the payment of Unemployment
Benefit, and apply to all parents selected under the balance of
family criterion and are enforced for five years;
(d) note that these changes will realise net savings of $6.3m in
1989-90, rising to $25.3m in 1991-92, and require an additional 6.2
ASL in 1988-89, rising to 16.8 ASL in 1990-91; and
(e) note that extension of Assurances of Support to recover
payments of UB will result in net savings of $1.23m, ( and an
additional 4.3 ASL) in 1989-90, $5.07m (and an additional 7.8 ASL)
in 1990-91 and $7.78m (and an additional 7.8 ASL) in 1991-92.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
Family Migration currently covers spouses, fiancees, dependent
children, parents and minor classes such as special need and aged
dependent relatives. Persons selected are subject only to health
and character checks. CAAIP proposed including grandparents in the
Family Migration Category and excluding parents under 55, who would
be processed in the Open Category. Ethnic interests welcome the
former, strenuously oppose the latter and argue additionally for
the inclusion at least of unmarried non-dependent children in the
untested Family Category.
3.
The treatment of relatives within the Family Category should
be assessed against basic parameters such as degree of dependency;
proximity of kinship with an Australian citizen/resident;
compassion; and impact on the wider community. Special attention
needs to be given in this regard to consequential budgetary impact.
4.
Grandparents are currently eligible for family entry where
their circumstances meet the criteria for "aged dependent relative"
and where their own children sponsor them as aged parents. Prior
ATTACHMENT K
92
[27]
to CAAIP there was no demand to enshrine them as a separate class.

The distance of the relationship, the potential numbers and the
likely demands on the social welfare budget discourage
liberalisation.
5.
Parents comprised 9 . 3% of the total migration program in
1987/88. Most were aged over 55. There is a certain symmetry
between the inclusion of parents under 55 (or even under 65) in the
points tested extended family category, and the trea~ment of
non-dependent children under current policy. It would, however,
significantly lower the intake of parents in this age group given
the selection requirements proposed for the points test.
6.
An alternative option is to retain parents in the Family
Category, but on the basis of a balance of family requirement i.e.
more of the parent(s)' children are lawfully and permanently
resident in Australia than in any single other country, or at least
an equal number are lawfully and permanently resident in Australia
as overseas. The requirement would count all children of the
social dependence. The Department of Social Security's view is
that sponsor/parent relationships are less prone to breakdown where
more family members are in Australia. A similar provision was in
place from 1979 but was dropped in 1982 in a package of measures
liberalising entry. It is estimated that this approach would
reduce the numbers qualifying by some 40%. It would result i n ~et
savings of $6 . 3m 1989/90, rising to $25.3m in 1991/92 after
administrative offsets against reductions in social security,
health and education outlays. This option allows more younger
parents to enter than CAAIP's recommendation, but fewer older
parents.
7.
The Family Migration Category is a provision which recognises
both the bonds and the responsibilities of kinship. The sponsoring
child under~akes ~o care f or ~he s ponsored ~ arent ~h rough an
Assurance of Support for 10 years, where the parent is of or within
10 years of retirement age. Under the terms of the Assurance, any
Special Benefit paid to the sponsored parent accrues as a debt
against the Assurer. Other forms of benefits and medical/hospital
costs are not recovered. The Assurance is not enforced after the
sponsored parent becomes a citizen, and some 7% fail to be honoured
prior to this time.
8.
Cabinet examined the operation of the Assurance of Support in
early August and agreed to administrative changes to tighten the
vetting
changes of a policy
llf'~G\.~~t
f"""l.f~J-1' 1:
CAB I
[28]
ET- N-CONFIDENCE
ATTACHMENT K
93
nature were deferred for consideration in the context of CAAIP.

9.
Almost half the number of parents entering are of working age
and are eligible for Unemployment Benefit (UB). Most of these are
in the age group for which an Assurance of Support is required.
Extension of Assurances to recover payments of UB would result in
net savings of some $1.2m in 1989/90, rising to $7.8m in 1991/92 .
Extension of Assurances to all parents entering as close family
under relaxed criteria would ensure consistency of treatment and
accord with the entry philosophy applying. This would yield net
savings of $0.29m in 1989/90 and $0.97m thereafter. Enforcement of
Assurances for a period of 5 years, irrespective of citizenship, is
administratively feasible and would yield savings of $2.3m in
1992/93 and gradually increasing thereafter. In each case, savings
would be lower if balance of family applies. The
Attorney-General's Department advises that the five year provision
would require either an amendment to the Migration Act, or the
replacement of the Assurance with a Deed. The former is preferable
given debt recovery action on Assurances currently underway.
10. The 'Balance of Family' assessment will require additional
information from applicants and sponsors, assessing and verifying
those details, and follow up interviews where required. The
case-load in 1988/89 is expected to be 6,550. The costs, which are
summarised below, cover salary, overtime and allowances for
additional overseas (including locally engaged staff (LES)) and
domestic staff plus additional general administrative costs and
are:
91/92
89/90
90/91
1988/89
253,450
A-Based overseas ($)
253,450
126,725
253,450
( 3 . 7)
(3.7)
(ASL)
( 1. 9)
( 3 . 7)
A-Based staff overseas
(DFAT) ( $)
103,430
103,430
62,250
103,430
DFAT ASL)
( 0.9)
( 0.9)
(0.5)
0.9)
247,500
*LES overseas ($)
247,500
123,750
247,500
309,777
Domestic ($)
309,777
309,777
154,889
( 7. 6)
(7.6)
(ASL)
( 7. 6)
(3.8)
General Administrative
604,110
expenses ($)
851,520
604,110
604,110
Computer Terminals (10)($)
Fitout costs (domestic
ASL)
$M
CA
20,000
60,800
1.32
1.60
1. 52
1. 52
. 2)
(12.2)
94
[29]
ATTACHMENT K
Notes
*Includes provision for ASL equivalent of 4.95 for 1988/89 and 9.9
in a full year.
A-Based salary costs based on $68,500 per person. LES salary costs
based on $25,000 per person.
General Administrative expenses based on :
A-Based of $26,000 DILGEA, $30,000 DFAT, $70,000 DAS
LES of $2,000 DILGEA, $5000 DFAT
Domestic of $7,900 DILGEA
Computer costs of $2,000 per terminal.
DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET
11. It should be noted that the immediate family category under
this proposal is more restrictive than in the existing program.
If the Minister's preferred option (c) is adopted, the imposition
of a 'balance of family' criterion on the entry of parents in the
immediate family category could be seen as an acceptable trade-off.
However, if a more restrictive approach to extended family
migration, such as option (a), is adopted, the addition of a
balance of family criterion would be seen as excessively harsh.
The entry of parents often provides independent settlers with
valuable support, particularly for women in need of assistance
because of isolation, communication problems, marital breakdown or
domestic violence. This must be weighed against the savings in
social welfare costs that would result from the 'balance of family'
restriction .
12. Finance strongly supports the proposals contained in the Paper
relating to the strengthening of the assurances of support .
However, it favours the CAAIP recommendation of placing parents
under 55 in the open (economic) category, combined with the
application of a balance of f amily crlterlon to parents 55 and over
(the proposal in the Submission is to apply a balance of family
criterion to all parents and includes all parents in the Family
Migration category). Finance notes that the balance of family
proposal, taken together with the CAAIP recommendation would
deliver substantially increased savings under the Social Security
and Community Services and Health portfolios.
13. Finance considers that the resources requirements to
administer the proposa~s should be settled bilaterally with the
102
[30]
ATTACHMENT L
(a) sensitivity of caseload, including foreign policy

implications;
(b) obligations as to confidentiality;
(c) protection of applicants and their families back home;
(d) the magnet effect of a higher-profile, determination process
on speculative non bona fide claims;
(e) need for speedy and flexible processing;
(f) cost effectiveness and resource efficiency.
21. Should it be agreed to retain and enhance the current DORS
mechanism it is estimated that some $103,500 will be required in
1988/89 to commence planning for enhanced procedures and $612,000
will be required in 1989/90 to implement new procedures.
These
figures include the availability of expert refugee staff at major
Australian airports, adequate support in Canberra (total 8 ASL) and
the use of automated technology to reduce processing times, while
meeting our international and legal obligations.
Eight ASL
($428,000) and $40,000 for support will be required in 1990/91 and
1991/92.
22. While the enhanced procedures proposed in this Submission are
casted at $468,000 per annum (with a once only establishment cost
of $170,000), my Department has estimated that the CAAIP Model
(which would require four people with the status of a Federal Court
Judge), would cost $2,013,000 per annum.
23. Finance supports the Submission's proposals in relation to the
size of the refugee and humanitarian program and the procedures for
determining refugee status.
24. Finance considers that, consistent with CM 12033, the proposal
to provide additional resources for the DORS procedures should be
considered in the 1989-90 portfolio targets context agreed to as a
means of resolvlng mlnor new policy.
25. Finance also questions the need for the establishment of
Principal Adviser for Refugee and International Affairs.
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE
26. DFAT supports the recommendation to retain and enhance the
present determination of refugee status (DORS) procedures.
27. DFAT agrees with the recommendations in Attachments L (i) and
P (r) for the Act to authorise the issue of letters consistent with
the Chicago Convention, Annex 9.
[31]
ATTACHMENT 0
115
ENFORCEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.
I recommend that Cabinet agree to
(a)
maintain deportation orders as decisions of administrative
character;
(b)
provide $200,000 for a consultancy project on options for
upgrading detention facilities;

( c)
provide $389,000 in 1989/90, $45,000 in 1990/91 and $45,000 in
1991/92 for Detention Centre improvements; and

(d)
note that the proposed seizure of assets of deportees will
defray the cost of detention by producing revenue estimated at

$0.1m in 1988-89 and $0.2m in a full year.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
CAAIP considered that responsibility for apprehension,
detention and enforcement of departure of prohibited non-citizens

should be largely transferred from DILGEA to the general law
enforcement and justice systems.
The Model Bill provides that
unauthorised stay in Australia is a continuing offence, punishable

on summary conviction, with the ordinary rules for detention and
bail applying.
Responsibility for apprehension and custody is not
specified but could, within the terms of the Bill, involve Federal
or State police.
3.
Ethnic and immigration law groups have opposed the provisions
as harsh and oppressive.
From an administrative and policy
viewpoint, the proposals also raise many practical and

philosophical difficulties relating to:
the capacity of the
Magistrates' Courts to process the caseload; systematic use of

State prisons for detention purposes; demands on the legal aid
budget given the criminalisation of the offence; the priority
likely to be accorded to the endorsement function by the States'
law enforcement and justice systems; and the budgetary demands of
the States should the proposal proceed.
4.
The CAAIP a pproach t c enforcemenL needs t o
j e
understood
terms of the logic of the total legislative package.
~n
The
conceptual starting point is the proposal that immigration

decisions be reviewable by the AAT.
This reshapes the
administrative landscape, as persons in Australia who are seeking

to stay can draw out the resolution of their cases through the
sequential use of review and appeal provisions.
To reduce delay,
it is necessary to reduce the number of reviewable decisions.

CAAIP's solution was to hive off the deportation decision into the
judicial arena, hence quarantining it from administrative review.
5.
AltcAaleET~JN~ CONI= IbENPCE quarantine
the
CAB NET-IN-CONFIDE CE
116
[32]
ATTACHMENT 0
deportation decision is flawed, the objective is sensible and

reasonable. The core decision affecting the individual is that
relating to entry: enforcement action is simply consequential on
an unfavourable outcome. Provided the entry decision is
reviewable, the deportation decision need not be. An analogy can
be drawn with the taxation jurisdiction, where the assessment
decision is reviewable, but recovery action is not.
6.
My preferred approach is to provide for the issue of the
deportation order to be a mandatory decision, to be taken once an
applicant has, after exhausting review rights, failed to depart
within a prescribed period. The legislative regime involved is
detailed at Attachment P.
7.
The level of my Department's enforcement activity is
constrained by the availability of space in its detention centres
(located in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth) and the extent to which it
is prepared to use State gaols, on a cost-recovery basis, for the
detention of prohibited non-citizens.
8.
Accommodation pressures are most acute in the Sydney and
Melbourne centres and in Brisbane where the available gaol is
unsuitable. The Block Scrutiny recommended the disposal of the
existing Sydney centre and its relocation to a site near the
International Airport. Agreement in principle was given by the
Prime Minister but action was deferred pending the outcome of
CAAIP. New or expanded facilities in these three locations are
estimated to require some $15.5 m for construction and fit out
(with some offsets for sale of the present Sydney site).
9.
Detention centres are a high cost detention option, at the
level of security currently provided. An arrangement where the
NSW, Queensland and Victorian Governments could provide an adequate
facility as part of their prison system would take some years to
come to operational fruition.
10. I propose, prior to embarking on major new works, to engage
consultants LO advise on t he cost and design of new facilities,
including required security levels, ($200,000), and the merits of
alternative options, including exclusive reliance on state
government facilities. The cost of the consultancy is very modest
compared with the $15.5m for major construction works in Sydney,
Melbourne and Brisbane.
11. Some work is urgently required in the interim to upgrade
facilities at the Melbourne centre to make it suitable for the
accommodation of family groups ($230,000). The unsatisfactory
alternative is separation of family members and distress and
128
[33]
ATTACHMENT P
TRAVEL DOCUMENTS TO DEPORTEES AND PERSONS REFUSED ENTRY

36. This is covered in Attachment L.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
37. The Department of Administrative Services (DAS) supports the
recommendations at Attachments 0 and P relating to the enforcement
process, in particular, those directed to the upgrading of
immigration detention facilities and amendment of the Act to allow
the making of regulations governing the operation of immigration
detention centres. In the light of the Block Efficiency Scrutiny's
recommendations and Cabinet Decision 11496 which decided,
inter-alia, that provision of custodial and escort services to
DILGEA is a principal function of the Australian Protective Service
(APS) and that DILGEA would be a tied client of the APS, DAS notes
its understanding that DILGEA envisages continued use of the APS to
perform the custodial function at the detention centres and that
there will be adequate and timely consultation with the APS in
relation to any aspect of its role which comes under consideration
in the course of the proposed consultancy project on upgrading of
the detention centres.
38. Finance has no objection to the proposed strategy for
amendment of the Migration Act, with the exception of the review
system discussed under Attachment N.
39. Finance supports the extension of the liability for an
Assurance of Support.
40.
DFAT agrees with the recommendations in Attachments L (i) and
P (r) for the Act to authorise the issue of letters consistent with
ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT
41. The Attorney-General's Department notes tha~ recommendation
(c) proposes the progressive structuring of the discretionary
criteria prescribed by regulations. Recommendation (d) proposes
provision for the review of decisions by regulations. While it
would be appropriate for the regulations to provide for review of
decisions made under the authority of the regulations, the review
of decisions made under the Act should be provided by amendments to
the Act.
42. The Attorney-Gene~al's Department opposes recommendation (n).
The proposal is to amend the Act to give the Minister the power to
129
[34]
ATTACHMENT P
override decisions of the AAT subject to the Minister tabling a

statement of reasons in Parliament. The proposal for the Minister
to be able to override an AAT decision is inconsistent with the
concept of determinative review . It makes the Minister an appeal
body from the AAT.
43. The Department understands that there may be concern about the
AAT exercising determinative powers in circumstances where
important policy considerations are involved. That concern can
readily be overcome in other ways eg. by:
(a) inclusion in the legislation of the criteria pursuant to which
the decisions are to be made;
(b) statutory provisions for the Minister to make guidelines
(subject to parliamentary disallowance) which would bind the AAT;
(c) the making of Ministerial policy statements to which the AAT
would have regard;
(d) conferring on the Minister a power to certify that a decision
was taken in the national interest, thereby removing a right of
~appeal.
CAB NET-IN-CONF DENCE
132
[35]
ATTACHMENT R
RESOURCE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION
1.
I recommend that Cabinet note that:
(a) the resource implications of the recommendations are dealt
with at each relevant attachment;
(b) the net additional cost of the recommendations (including
establishment costs) in 1988-89 is $6.1m and 50.4 ASL, in 1989-90
$20.0m and 144.5 ASL, $17.7m (182.6 ASL) in 1990-91, and $6.3m
(170.6 ASL) in 1991-92;
(c) the total net savings of the package in 1989-90 dollar terms
are $309m with the English test and $92m without the English test
but with the Balance of Family option; and
(d) in establishing the resources platform from which the response
to CAAIP is to be delivered, a $4.6m shortfall in revenue from
migration applications is expected in 1988-89 because of a reduced
application rate.
(e) further submissions arising directly out of Cabinet's
consideration of this Submission may need to draw upon the savings
I am now proposing.
2.
Figure 1 summarises the costs and savings to the Commonwealth
arising from the recommendations. It does not seek to establish
the potential overall impact of CAAIP given that further decisions
are proposed to be taken downstream eg. detention centres. Figure
2 dissects those costs by agency.
3.
CAAIP did not address in any detail the resource implications
of its recommendations. Castings of specific items it identified
were estimated to require additional resources for DILGEA of $11m
in 1988-89, $8m in 1989-90 and $9m in 1990-91. It considered that
its recommendations should be substantially implemen~ed through ~he
re-allocation of existing resources or ~hrough the introduction or
extension of user-pays arrangements.
4.
The CAAIP approach raises a number of problems.
'a) ~he c os ~~~ g s ~ t ~d e n~ i~~ ed ~ ere ~ as ed ~n ~n art i~rar7 :~ s ~~~c
of recommendations which it considered should be earmarked for
additional resources.
(b) It had little knowledge of what the overall resource impac~ of
its recommendations would be.
(c)It did not consider the costs that other agencies might face.
(d) Cost recovery is a principle that has been embraced by DILGEA,
both for broad reasons of equity and as a means of marshalling the
use of scarce resources, and largely implemented. In this regard,
the budget estimates provides for cost-recovery estimated at 46% of
[36]
CAB I ET-IN-CONFIDENCE
ATTACHMENT S
138
ECONOMIC MIGRATION (Attachment H)

(g)
agree that:
(i)
an Economic Migration program level be set each year in the
light of changing needs of the economy;

(ii) Economic Migration be divided into two streams: an
employer/business-driven targeted stream with no points test and no
capping, and a residual broad-based labour force enhancement stream
with a points test;
(iii)the targeted migration stream comprise four categories:
Tripartite Negotiated Arrangements; Individual Employer
Nominations; Business Migration and Special Skills Migration;
(iv) a Council be established with responsibility for overseas
skills recruitment, details of membership and terms of reference to
be jointly developed by Department of Employment, Education and
Training and Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic
Affairs; and
(v)
the present Occupational Shares System (OSS) be included as
part of the Independent Migration category in the broad-based

labour force enhancement stream;
POINTS TEST (Attachment I)
(h)
agree :
(i)
that a points test be differentially app l ied to Extended
Family and Independent Migration as separate streams to address the

competing social and economic objectives of the categories;
(ii) that the points test comprise the following factors:
(i)
employability with skill, age and language as sub-factors;

(ii) relationship;
(iii) c i tizenship;
(iv) settlement; (v)
location, as detailed at Figure 1, Attachment I;

(iii)that the factor of Employability be used in assessing
Independent migrants and factors of Employability (minus language),
Relationship, Citizenship, Settlement and Location be used in
( iv) that a floating pass mark be used to manage the p oints tested
component of the program;
(v)
to note that a more sophisticated and complex selection system

ASL
$M
1988-89
33
3.6
1989-90
58
7.4
1990-91
44
5.4
1991-92
32
4.6
(vi) to note that an increased Extended Family intake, without

English
CAitJINET-tfN~ Cn
eN
{!. 1
result in net
CABIN ET-1 N-CON FIDENCE

139
[37]
ATTACHMENT S
additional costs of $0.15m in 1988-89, $11.51m in 1989-90, $25.55m

in 1990-91 and $24.55m in 1991-92.
RECOGNITION OF OVERSEAS QUALIFICATIONS (Attachment J)
(i) agree:
(i) to note the useful contribution of the work of the National
Population Council in developing a model of reform for the
recognition of overseas qualifications;
(ii) that this model, together with other related inquiries into
the issue should be referred to a working party of the Structural
Adjustment Committee (SAC) for further consideration by early 1989;
and
(iii)that this working party should examine overseas skills in the
context of skill accreditation and qualification recognition more
generally in Australia;
FAMILY MIGRATION (Attachment K)
(j) agree:
(i) that parents be processed in the untested Family Migration
category only where the balance of their children are resident in
Australia (ie. that parents must have more children lawfully and
permanently resident in Australia than in any single other country
or at least an equal number permanently resident in Australia as
overseas);
(ii) that this requirement would count all children of the parent
and his/her spouse irrespective of degree of economic or social
dependence;
(iii)that policy on Assurances of support be tightened such that
Assurances of Support extend to the payment of Unemployment
family criterion and are enforced for five years;
(iv)to note that these changes will realise net savings of $6.3m in
ASL in 1988-89, rising to 16.8 ASL in 1990-91; and
(v) ~ o noLe that extension of ~ssurances of Support ~o re cover
payments of UB will result in net savings of $1.23m ( and an
additional 4.3 ASL) in 1989-90, $5.07m (and an additional 7.8 ASL)
in 1990-91 and $7.78m (and an additional 7.8 ASL) in 1991-92.
REFUGEE AND HUMANITARIAN ENTRY (Attachment L)
(k) agree:
(i) to maintain the Refugee/Special Humanitarian Entry Program
(SHP) numbers at the current program level;
(ii) to reject involvement by domestic community agencies in
overseas selection of refugee/SHP cases;
(iii)
t~A" Il\r:
_. r\~etl'N fl o~
E escue program to
[38]
CABINET- N-CONFIDE CE
140
ATTACHMENT S
provide speedy acceptance of refugees and people still in their own

country who are confronting immediate persecution or life
(iv) to further consider a limited utilisation of the overseas
affiliations of church organisations which may be well placed
through their networks to identify some cases requiring urgent
rescue from persecution;
(v)
to note that, however, there are a number of sensitivities
which would need to be addressed about the parameters applying to
any agency involvement, if it is to occur;
(vi) to retain and enhance present Determination of Refugee Status
(DORS) procedures. To this end, an additional 1 ASL ($53,470) and
$50,000 for support and automated technology be provided in 1988/89
to plan and commence enhanced frontier processing, with a total of
8 ASL ($428,000) and $120,000 for support and automated technology
to be provided in 1989/90 to fully implement enhancement of
frontier processing; that 8 ASL ($428,000) together with $40,000
for support functions be provided in 1990/91 and 1991/92 to
(vii) to retain the legislative provision to halt refugee claimants
at the frontier and not to admit them to Australia until their
claims to refugee status are decided coupled with an enhancement of
frontier processing procedures;
(viii) to the establishment of a senior officer (SES Level 3) in
DILGEA as Principal Adviser for Refugee and International Affairs
who will be assigned to co-ordinate responses to refugee and
international migration matters, requiring additional resources of
0.5 ASL and $0.05m in 1988-89, 1 ASL and $0.09m in 1989-90 and
subsequent years; and
(ix) to the drafting of letters that would be issued by DILGEA
relating to persons who do not have a valid national travel
document, or are undocumented who are refused entry, or are about
o be eported. ? hese letters would be issued in a f8rm consistent
with Annex 9 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944
(the Chicago Convention);
SETTLEMENT (Attachment M)
(1) agree that:
(i) DILGEA concentrate its settlement programs on the needs-based
provision of services for immigrants, with the aim of converting
migration program objectives into related social and economic
outcomes;
(ii) in accordance with this aim, DILGEA re-focus its settlement
a
~ ting
its programs
[39]
141
ATTACHMENT S
to priority needs of the annual intake associated with the

circumstances of their migration; clarification of DILGEA's
strategic role in settlement through phasing out duplications with
other agencies having regard to their access and equity
commitments; and the appropriateness of cost recovery measures for
its programs;
ACCOUNTABLE DECISION MAKING (Attachment N)
(m) agree to:
(i) a two-tier system of review involving statutory first-tier
review by a unit within my Department, followed by application to
the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT);
(ii) to a net additional $2.1m and 21.3 ASL in 1989-90, rising to
$4.8m and 65.9 ASL in 1990-91 for the implementation of the system;
(iii)note that castings are based on the assumptions at Figure 1 to
Attachment N, which build on AAT experience in other jurisdictions
and the possible need for revision if there is any significant
departure from these assumptions; and
(iv) to note that the Minister for Justice is bringing forward
a separate submission on access to legal aid which will canvass,
inter-alia, the limitation of legal aid to seek administrative or
judicial review of decisions on immigration status to citizens and
permanent residents of Australia;
ENFORCEMENT (Attachment 0)
(n) agree to:
(i) maintain deportation orders as decisions of administrative
character;
(ii) provide $200,000 for a consultancy project on opt i ons for
upgrading detention facilities;
(iii)provide $389,000 in 1989-90, $45,000 in 1990-91 and $45,000 in
1991-92 for Detention Centre improvements; and
(iv) note that the proposed seizure of assets of deportees will
defray the cost of detention by producing revenue estimated at
$0.1m i n ! 988-89 and S0. 2m ~n a f~ l l ~ ear.
MIGRATION ACT AMENDMENTS (Attachment P)
(o) agree to amend the Migration Act 1958 to:
(i) provide for a two tier review system: internal review
followed by AAT review;
(ii) allow for legislatively based, internal review within my
Department;
(iii)empower the Governor-General to make regulations setting up
the first tier internal review including the operation and
procedures of the first tier;
( i v)
empCA eleNGE'f-loN~EOI\I felij~ !(((;~ tions
prescribing
142
[40]
ATTACHMENT S
decisions to be reviewable, standing requirements applicable, the

fees involved, and whether review is determinative or
recommendatory;
(v) exclude from AAT review security decisions and security
elements of otherwise reviewable decisions;
(vi) empower the Minister to issue conclusive certificates
excluding AAT review on grounds of security, defence or
international relations;
(vii)provide that all prescribed decisions are reviewable
automatically by the AAT only after determination by the first tier
internal review without any special leave requirement;
(viii)insert a provision where both tiers of review are urged and
empowered to determine all reviewable decisions arising under the
Act (that are in dispute betw~ en the parties to the review) by
requiring the applicants to make any or all additional applications
(which they wish to pursue) within a specified date; by requiring
the Department to decide any such applications (if made); and by
dealing with matters in dispute (arising following such decisions)
with the original grounds of the application for review in that
tier;
(ix)allow for regulations to be made specifying:
policy criteria - entitlements/restrictions for each category;
decisions, which are presently made under statutory
discretions (e.g. visa/permit/deportation) to be made under
regulations (these discretions would cease to have effect - by
proclamation- to coincide with the making of regulations);
the factors applicable to categories subject to "points
testing";
~
the mechanism for 'rolling over' applications in the pool (ie.
neither qualified nor rejected under the prevailing pass and
failure marks) and for their ultimate approval or rejection;
charge and recovery of fees in respect of review for internal
review and to remit, refund or waive such fees;
(x) allow the Minister by notice in the Gazette to prescribe the
points applicable to each factor in the points system, the
qualifying score and the failure score (for each 'points tested'
category referred to in the Regulations) for eligibility for entry;
(xi) remove the discretion to deport under s.18 and provide for
automatic departure - failing which it would be mandatory to order
deportation where permits have been denied or not sought. Once a
person were ordered deported, they would be ineligible for the
143
[41]
ATTACHMENT S
grant of a permit while they remained in Australia;

(xii)provide that the Secretary rather than the Minister is the
principal decision-maker (except for deportation on
security/defence grounds) with the Secretary being empowered to
delegate his/her powers and functions under the Act;
(xiii)empower the Minister to give decision-makers directions as to
general policy matters; and secondly to empower the Minister to
direct that receiving or processing of applications by the
Department is to cease - until a nominated date - in respect of
selected specific categories set out in the Regulations (thereby
suspending any obligation to receive or process applications);
(xiv)empower the Minister to substitute his/her decision for that
of the AAT in the public interest, subject to the Minister tabling
a Statement of Reasons in Parliament;
(xv) allow for release from custody under s.38 and s.39 on
conditions imposed by authorised officers. Conditions would
include taking of securities;
(xvi)allow for seizure (and sale) of property of persons
detained/deported to offset debts owed to the Commonwealth
resulting from the detention/deportation;
(xvii)require applicants for GORS under s.6A(1)(b) to hold valid
temporary entry permits;
(xviii)provide for the issue of letters consistent with Annex 9 to
the Chicago Convention to a person refused entry or to a deportee;
(xix)provide that the liability for an Assurance of Support
continue notwithstanding that the person(s) covered by the
Assurance acquired Australian citizenship;
(xx) allow the Governor General to make regulations concerning the
management of detention centres and to regulate the rights of
detainees and the powers of officers (Australian Protective Service
Officers); and
(xxi)provide for the amendments to come into force on a date to be
p roclaimed;
IMMIGRATION RESEARCH AND INFORMATION (Attachment Q)
(p) agree:
( i) to the creation of a Bureau of Immigration Research in March
1989 at a cost of an extra $0.95m and 5 ASL in 1988/89, $4.15m and
19 ASL in 1989/90 and $4.0m and 19 ASL in subsequent years;
(ii) note that there will be savings if I decide to subsequently
locate it in Canberra; and
CABINET-IN-CO FIDENCE
144
,.
[42]
ATTACHMENT S
(iii)note that I shall be seeking funds for a public information

campaign in the 1989/90 new policy context;
RESOURCE SUMMARY (Attachment R)
(q) note that:
(i) the resource implications of the recommendations are dealt
(ii) the net additional cost of the recommendations (including
establishment costs) in 1988-89 is $6.1m and 50.4 ASL, in 1989-90
$20.0m and 144.5 ASL, $17.7m (182.6 ASL) in 1990-91, and $6.3m
(170.6 ASL) in 1991-92;
(iii) the total net savings of the package in 1989-90 dollar terms
but with the Balance of Family option;
(iv) note that, in establishing the resources platform from which
the response to CAAIP is to be delivered, a $4.6m shortfall in
revenue from migration applications is expected in 1988-89 because
of a reduced application rate; and
(v) further submissions arising directly out of Cabinet's
I am now proposing;
VIEWS OF CAUCUS COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND
ETHNIC AFFAIRS (Attachment T)
(r) note the views expressed at Attachment T.
156
[43]
ATTACHMENT U
with national interest and the longer term). Similarly, Guiding

Principle (c) at page 51 should refer to 'environmental' as well as
'social, economic and cultural'.
11. The linkages between population and environment can only be
addressed adequately in a longer term framework and by an adequate
process of integrated policy formulation. There is a need to
emphasise the close links domestically and globally between
population, economic forces and the management of natural
resources. This would need to be taken up in further discussions
between our Departments.
12. The Department strongly supports an approach to economic
migration which will encourage the introduction of people, in the
short term, who have identifiable skills in demand in Australia
which cannot currently be met through the training of Australians.
While acknowledging the benefits of a targeted approach, there
could still be benefits, for example for the tourism and travel
industries, from a substantial general economic intake.
Recruitment needs of the tourism industry could be linked to
tripartite negotiations so that the selection process could be
further streamlined.
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING
13. The Department of Employment, Education and Training supports
the broad thrust of this Submission, in particular the greater
economic focus being afforded the migration policy.
14. DEET notes that the Submission does not address the longer
term future of responsibility for adult migrant education .
TREASURY
(a) the proposed system will in time come to rely very heavily on
negotiated arrangements to meet demands for skills in short supply,
and there is a danger that difficulties in reaching agreement on a
tripartite basis could in practice limit the flexibility of the
migration system to act as a safety valve in relieving shortages.
Employers should be allowed access to the Employer Nomination
Scheme where tripartite agreement on numbers cannot be reached (as
well as where they are not covered by a negotiated agreement);
[44]
157
ATTACHMENT U
(b) greater weight should be given to skills in short supply in

(c) in view of the very high correlation between unemployment
(d) under the proposa l , t he proport i on of the total intake with
present policy to about 70 per cent (Attachment I, paragraph 14) .
program.
16. The Department of Social Security agrees with the overall
direction for reform of Australia's immigration policy outlined in
the Submission.
17. DSS supports the application of the proposed 'balance of
family' criterion to migration of parents and the proposed changes
to policy on Assurances of Support. DSS notes that measures
proposed in the area of family migration may, i n the longer term,
reduce social welfare outlays. These savings will be greater given
Cabinet's decision that only those clearly able to honour an
a ssurance shou l d be perm~tted to sponsor under this c ategory.
18. DSS also supports the retention and enhancement of the DORS
arrangements and the establishment of a council to initiate,
co-ordinate and oversee overseas skills recruitment.
19. However, the whole approach to population policies implicitly
assumes that the only variable is the net immigration intake. In
spite of conventional wisdom there may well be areas where the
Australian birthrate could be influenced by eliminating
disincentives to have children. This aspect of population policy
has not been given adequate attention in the Australian debate.
[45]
...... - .......
11 til
Submission No.
FOR CABINET
Copy No. -
\"
Title
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO ADVISE

ON AUSTRALIA'S IMMIGRATION POLICIES (CAAIP)
Minister
Senator the Hon. Robert Ray, Minister for Immigration, Local

Government and Ethnic Affairs
Purpose/Issues
directions for immigration

to CAAIP.
of 23 May 1988 noted that the Minister for

Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, following a
further Submission on CAAIP, would make a substantive
Statement to Parliament before the end of the Budget Session
1988 on the Government's response to CAAIP.
Relation to
policy
ex~ting
Sensitivity /Criticism
Legislation
involved
Urgency:
Critical/significant
dates
Co . .,ultation:
Ministers/Depts
consulted
Is there
agreement?
Timing/handling of
announcement
Cost
~o ~ eek Cabinet's agreement to new

po ~igy and legislation in response
YES. Ethnic communities will criticise requirements to be

applied to parents and welcome provision for extended family
in the Family category. Legal interests will welcome 2-tier
review and rejection of criminalisation of enforcement.
Legal and refugee interests will criticise failure to provide
for a Refugee Commissioner and review of refugee status
decisions. Employers should welcome retention of an economic
focus. Unions should welcome emphasis on tripartite
negotiated arrangements.
YES. The Attorney-General's Department confirms that
amendment of the Migration Act 1958 and Regulations will be
required.
The Government is committed to announcing decisions before
the end of the Budget Session 1988.
Prime Minister and Cabinet(PM&C); Foreign Affairs and
Trade(DFAT); Finance; Treasury; Attorney-General's(A-G's);
Employment, Education and Training(DEET); Industrial
Relations(DIR); Community Services and Health(DCSH); Social
Security(DSS); Arts, Sport, Environment, Tourism and
Territories(DASETT); Industry, Technology and
Commerce(DITAC); Administrative Services(DAS).
NO. Some concerns about dual points streams, absence of
English test for extended family (Attachment I), the case for
Administrative Appeals Tribunal(AAT) review and addressing
resource questions in the context of this Submission
(Attachments F-R and U).
Draft Statement to Parliament is at Attachment A and is
proposed for 7 December 1988.
Fin Yr ( 88 ~ 89 )
Fin Yr ( 89 -90
Fin Yr 90
91:COST$:
6.12m
19.99m
17.69m
COST $:
5.97m
9.65m
-5.53m
ASL
50.4
144.5
182.6
The recommendations will deliver savings, in 1989-90 dollars,
of $309m (with English testing) and $92m (without English
testing but with ba~ance of family). castings are at
Without Engli
test
With English est
CABINET-I -CONFIDENCE
[46]
BACKGROUND
1.
The report of the Committee to Advise on Australia's
Immigration Policies (CAAIP) was tabled on 3 June this year. There
has been extensive evaluation of and consultation on its findings.
The scope and complexity of issues considered by CAAIP require that
they be spelt out in greater detail in Attachments which are
indexed at Attachment B. Public reaction to CAAIP is summarised at
Attachment C. A matrix of the Inter Departmental Committee's (IDC)
views and of my proposed response on each of the 73 CAAIP
recommendations is at Attachment D. Recommendations on each
specific area appear at the beginning of the relevant Attachment
and are summarised at Attachment S. The views of the Caucus
Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Committee are at
Attachment T. Consultation comments specific to Attachments appear
at the end of the relevant Attachment . General consultation
comments are at Attachment U.
CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES
2.
CAAIP was the first major review of immigration in 10 years.
It has generated considerable debate and mixed reaction. To the
extent that immigration enjoys support, the wider community has
welcomed the broad thrust of CAAIP's recommendations. Ethnic
communities fear the consequences of its proposed economic thrust,
which is welcomed by Industry. We are faced with dilemmas and
opportunities. The package I propose is designed to achieve
outcomes which balance economic and social objectives; settle
expectations of and opposition to an ever expanding program;
provide a structure for future programs; and work towards community
understanding of immigration.
3.
The fundamental issues are program size and composition . The
central tension within the migration program is between economic
and family migrants within a program which aims to achieve
desirable outcomes for Australian society (see Attachment E). The
more we respond to economic imperatives (by stressing youth,
skills, English) the more we offend ethnic groups who see family
reunion as paramount (ie. parents, non-dependent children,
siblings). While the two streams of immigration are not logically
contradictory, it is true that one is accented at the cost of the
other.
4.
The balance which I favour involves three broad categories Family, Economic and Humanitarian - plus a minor Special
Eligibility category. Each category would combine migrants
[47]
selected overseas and persons granted resident status in Australi~,

and each category would have an overall cap.
5.
A capped Family Category would principally comprise close
family (an uncapped component for spouses, fiance(e)s, dependent
children and parents whose family is mostly in Australia), Grant of
Resident Status on family grounds (also uncapped), with the balance
within the cap being a points-tested component for extended family
(siblings, non-dependent children, nieces and nephews and some
parents).
6.
CAAIP recommended that the extended family group should
compete on merit in an "Open Category" alongside independent
applicants. In my view this approach over-emphasises skills and
undervalues kinship. I prefer an approach that uses separate
streams to trade off a degree of skill for kinship. Different
tests will apply, with the English ability factor removed and
sponsor attribute factors added for extended family. The English
ability factor is contentious: it assists settlement and enhances
economic potential, but is widely perceived as discriminatory. As
the tes't for extended family will still emphasise employability, a
positive labour market outcome can be expected. Moreover, separate
streams will also generate greater skill diversity and a more
flexible response to the full range of needs of the economy.
7.
The Economic Category also needs an overall cap and would
comprise uncapped components for Business Migrants, Employer
Nominated Migrants and Grant of Resident Status (GORS) on
employment grounds, and a capped points-tested component comprising
Occupational Share System (OSS) and Independent migrants,
emphasising economic qualities.
8.
The Humanitarian Category would combine the Refugee and
Special Humanitarian Program with GORS in Australia on refugee and
humanitarian grounds.
9.
In successive years programs have grown to accommodate
expanding demand under a fixed points test, creating a difficult
climate for planning and a perception of an uncontrolled program.
Capping, with a buffer group of points-tested candidates in each of
the Family and Economic Categories whose numbers are regulated by a
floating passmark, provides the mechanism for effective program
management.
10. Program numbers and mix must reflect the economic, social, and
humanitarian objectives to which immigration contributes and
produce responsible demographic outcomes. Program size should be
[48]
determined by building up the components of the program to achieve

these. CAAIP's approach of setting a global figure from which the
size of program components is derived has been widely criticised as
lacking convincing rationale and as idiosyncratic. We also need to
consider carefully the total migration program and its general
effect on Australian society, the economy and environment.
11. The migration of close family is the base line for any
migration program. Current trends suggest some 46,000 places if
current policy is retained. This would drop to some 41,000 under
my proposed balance of family criterion for the selection of
parents. The Special Eligibility Category for minor groups such as
former citizens and residents and GORS on certain compassionate
grounds responds similarly to compelling human circumstances and
warrants up to 1,000 places.
12. Australia has a proud humanitarian record and while our
international obligations require us to assist refugees within our
territory, a wider progra. alleviates our own regional pressures.
At this stage, I see no reason to expand the current program of
14,000, including a 1,500 contingency reserve.
13. Pressures within the economy to expand the development of
business and meet specialised labour shortfalls will be
accommodated by targeted migration initiatives. I anticipate that,
subject to overcoming the effects of the Asian migration debate,
the Business Migration Program (BMP) could easily grow while the
Employer Nominated/Tripartite Negotiated Arrangement requirements
are for 11,000 places in the short term, with the potential to
expand as new arrangements are negotiated.
14. These base components account for a floor of some 80,000
places in the program. The residual question is the numbers to be
allocated for points-tested extended family and points-tested
independents.
15. Strong demand currently exists for these places and there are
benefits associated with provision for a competitive, broadly
skill-based residual in the economic category. Pressures are even
greater in the extended family component where a limited program
response would exacerbate ethnic community concerns and could
reduce interest in the Economic Category. There is a considerable
available pool of candidates for the current OSS (which would be
incorporated into the points system) and for the Independent and
Concessional (I & C) Category. In 1988/89 we will select some
[49]
5
55 1 000 from - this pool; over half as extended family. I anticipate

maintaining a figure of this order for the immediate future.
16. With these program elements 1 I propose a program of 140 1 000
for the next two to three years 1 with some flexibility for growth
in the Economic Category. While CAAIP recommended that an
indicative program be given for a further 7 years I am reluctant
to do so until I have the benefit of more systematic research on
the social and economic consequences of immigration policies.
17. I therefore propose to establish a Bureau of Immigration
Research in line with CAAIP's recommendation to improve
substantially the research capacity within my portfolio. This is
essential if we are to deal effectively with criticism of
immigration/ concerns about its perceived effects 1 and to ensure
that debate is informed. It should also lead to greater
efficiencies in the Program. I also propose to develop a public
information campaign to address directly the myths and
misconceptions about immigration.
18. A vigorous migration program must also be supported by
accountable decision making 1 an.appropriate legislative base 1 and
services to assist the settlement of new arrivals. CAAIP made a
number of recommendations in these areas 1 some controversial.
19. I believe CAAIP was too prescriptive in limiting provision of
settlement services to the first two years after a migrant's
arrival. Settlement services should target the priority needs of
annual intakes according to the individual's circumstances of
migration and provide needs-based services to help migrants reach
their potential and integrate successfully. Duplication with other
agencies should be phased out having regard to their access and
equity commitments.
20. CAAIP's Model Bill provided for enforcement activity to be
transferred to the criminal justice system. I reject this as
ineffective and out of step with criminal law policy. I am not
attracted to the Bill's proposal for an Independent Commissioner to
hear on-shore refugee claims and propose that the current
Determination of Refugee Status (DORS) procedure be retained and
enhanced. I also envisage retention of Migration Act provisions
which deem arrivals who have been refused entry not to have entered
Australia and reject the Model Bill's provisions which could result
in the situation faced in Canada where there have been some 85 1 000
refugee claimants in two years.
1
[50]
6
21.
To enhance accountable decision making I propose a two-tier
system of review with statutory first tier review by independent

DILGEA officers, followed by a largely unfettered application to
the AAT.
I believe this is preferable to CAAIP's proposal for
single tier review to the AAT, as the first tier would act as a
filter, resulting in lower overall cost.
22.
This move to external review will require removal of the wide
discretions contained in the Migration Act.
I propose that they be
replaced by restrictions and entitlements set out in regulations,

and that the regulation making power be expanded accordingly.
also propose that the Office of Secretary be the principal

decision-maker under the Act, consistent with the practice in other
major jurisdictions.
This focuses the Minister's role more
properly on matters of policy and distances the Office from the

danger of judicial censure.
I would, however, retain the power to
determine refugee status applications and reviews, and to override

other individual decisions on the basis that such action would
require a Statement of Reasons to the Parliament.
23.
CAAIP proposed the replacement of the existing Migration Act
with new legislation.
If effected swiftly, this could result in
unpredictable and undesirable outcomes for policy flexibility and

program management.
Yet some urgent change is required.
I favour
an incremental approach, making some amendments immediately and

incorporating much of the system in regulations.
FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
24.
The package proposed has sought to balance economic and social
objectives without adding to the long-term costs of Government.

The resource implications (detailed at Attachment R) are estimated
as follows:
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
6.12
19.99
17.69
6.27
5.97
9.65
-5.53
-15.94
Without English test

$m
With English test
$m
ASL
50.4
144.5
182.6
170.6
In nominal terms, the package pays for itself in around 6 years and
would have delivered net savings of $89.5m (with English testing)
and a net cost of $10.7m (without English testing but with Balance
of
F~mily)
after a five-year period.
The savings delivered by the
package, expressed in terms of their value in 1989-90 dollars, are

estimated at $309m (with English testing) and $92m (without English
testing but with Balance of Family).
CABINET-IN-CONFIDE CE
[51]
7
RECOMMENDATIONS
25.
I recommend that Cabinet agree :
(a)
to the recommendations appearing in Attachments C to R and

summarised at Attachment S ;
(b)
note the views of the Caucus Immigration, Local Government and

Ethnic Affairs Committee at Attachment T; and
(c)
that I make a Statement along the lines of Attachment A.
24 November 1988
ROBERT RAY
8
[52]
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT STATEMENT TO PARLIAMENT

1.
Mr President, I wish to advise the Senate of the Government's
decisions on the report of the Committee to Advise on Australia's
Immigration Policies to which, for the purpose of the Statement I
will refer to as the Committee. I firstly wish to pay tribute to
the members of the Committee for their dedication to the very
difficult task they had before them; a task which they approached
with vigour and imagination. Examination of the issues required a
high level of commitment and often personal sacrifice - both of
which members of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr Stephen
FitzGerald gave readily and willingly. I wish to place on record
the Government's appreciation for the personal and collective
efforts of all members of the Committee.
2.
I would also like to inform Honourable Senators of the context
of the Committee and of the process followed for evaluating its
findings. Establishment of the Committee followed a Labor Party
election commitment in 1987, in recognition of concerns and
misunderstandings about immigration which have grown in recent
years.
It was the first major examination of immigration in 10
years. In the 9 months it took for its examination of the issues,
the Committee conducted consultations with 587 individuals and
organisations; received 970 written submissions and held four
workshops for detailed examination of specific topics including
selection mechanisms and legislation. In addition, the Committee
commissioned 11 consultancies to advise it on a wide range of
immigration related topics. The Committee probably undertook the
widest ranging examination of immigration to have taken place in
Australia's history and it has set the broad direction for the
changes I am about to announce.
3.
Mr President, that process was not the end of the story. In
tabling the report in the Parliament on 3 June this year, my
predecessor, the Hon. Clyde Holding, announced that there would be
a period of three months for public evaluation and comment on its
findings; an interdepartmental committee was to be established to
examine the report's proposals and the immigration advisory body,
the National Population Council, would be asked to advise on some
aspects of the report. Since it was tabled, Working Parties of the
Council have undertaken detailed analysis and examination of two
crucial areas to which I will return later in my address. The
Working Parties have made an invaluable contribution to the
Government's consideration of the Committee's report. Their advice
9
[53]
ATTACHMENT A
has been crucial to our consideration of it and I ~u inJebLed to

them for their efforts.
4.
The process for evaluating the report has in many senses been
as comprehensive as the process which produced it. Twelve
Government Departments participated in the interdepartmental
committee. The National Population Council has conducted in-depth
research into selection mechanisms and overseas qualification
recognition. Over 120 submissions from individuals and
organisations, commenting in detail on the Committee's
recommendations, have been received. Substantial media and public
comment was monitored and analysed. During September, I met with
my State and Territory counterparts to discuss the report and
visited the capital city of each State and Territory to hear at
first hand the views of ethnic, employer, union, legal, welfare,
church, refugee and population group interests.
5.
The Committee's report has aroused considerable interest and
controversy. This is not surprising for an issue such as
immigration, which touches the lives of every Australian, whether
born here or migrant. Its central message - that immigration
should be for all ~ustralians - has received wide support. Its
proposals for a sharper economic focus to and through immigration
have aroused apprehension among ethnic communities, while being
welcomed by commercial and other sectors of the wider community.
Some query why we have immigration at all and others call for
substantial program increases.
6.
Two areas of the report have aroused particular controversy:
multiculturalism and citizenship. The issue of multiculturalism
was not central to the report and the subsequent attention afforded
to it did not add to the community's understanding of the issue and
was at some cost to informed debate on the core immigration issues
in the report.
7.
Multicultural policies play no part in immigrant selection.
As a quite separate domestic policy, multiculturalism seeks to
ensure that those born in Australia and those who migrated to
Australia, are accorded their rights.
8.
As a result of our non-discriminatory immigration policy we
now live in an ethnically diverse community. We are already, in a
descriptive sense, a multicultural nation. Multiculturalism is
premised on an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia. It
embraces basic issues of individual expression, social justice and
economic efficiency. We need multicultural policies precisely in
CAB NET-IN-CONFIDENCE
10
[54]
ATTACHMENT A
order to ensure that insecurity, disharmony, injustice and

inefficiency do not disfigure our society.
9.
Contrary to popular belief, the Committee did not reject the
concept of multiculturalism. While reporting widespread mistrust
and misunderstanding of the term, it endorsed the need for such a
policy. The Government is aware of the misapprehension and
confusion within the community. We are currently developing the
National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia in order to give
sharper definition and direction to the policy.
10. The Committee rightly identified citizenship as the ultimate
expression of commitment to Australia, but in the Government's view
proposed an inappropriate strategy for encouraging its acquisition.
A commitment stems from deeply felt sentiments and cannot be
developed by sanctions or coercion. The Prime Minister's
announcement of a 'Year of Citizenship' which he launched on 30
September is a positive approach. Initiatives for the Year are
designed to enhance the concept of citizenship; co encourage all
who are eligible to acquire it and to promote awareness of and
pride in what being an Australian citizen means.
11. At the outset of the Committee's work, the Government made it
clear that the principle of non-discrimination was not negotiable.
Indeed, the Committee found that anti-Asian sentiment was not a
major issue. It is regrettable that the Opposition sought to
exploit this issue during the course of the Government's
deliberations on the Committee's report, but it is a telling
indictment that members of their own ranks crossed the Floor of
both Houses to vote with the Government on our successful motion
earlier this year to uphold the principle of non-discrimination.
We are already feeling the effects of the so-called 'Asian
Migration' debate and our overseas posts have reported considerable
concern resulting from it. In order to ensure continued interest
in programs such as the Business Migration Program, where Asia has
been our largest source, there needs to be convincing reassurance
that Asians are welcome in Australia .
12. This Government remains resolutely committed to the principle
of an immigration policy which does not discriminate on the basis
of race or ethnic origin. The events since the release of the
Committee's report have re-inforced that view. It is in that
context that I now state that this Government believes that a
return to a bi-partisan policy is in the interests of all
Australians. I take this opportunity to go on the record and say
CABINET-IN-C.ONFIDENCE
11
[55]
ATTACHMENT A
to the Opposition that should you accept this invitation to return

to a bi-partisan non-discriminatory policy, the Government, for its
part, will not seek to take political advantage of the fact that
you have done so.
13. Mr President, before turning to the Government's response to
the Committee's report, I want to emphasise some important general
points about Australia's immigration program. Firstly, the size
and composition of that program reflects quite diverse economic,
social and humanitarian goals all of which are important to
Australia. Certain elements of the program have been specifically
tailored to our economic development requirements - for example to
attract business migrants with capital funds and entrepreneurial
skills, and to supply young, skilled, educated and readily
employable migrants. Some of these migrants are selected because
they have specific skills which are in short supply which cannot
immediately be met by domestic training and education programs.
These economic migrants, through the skills and capital theJ bring
to us, actually create more jobs than they take and make a very
positive economic contribution to Australia.
14. In terms of social goals, Australia supports the concept of
the family as a natural and fundamental group unit of society. The
practice of permitting husband, wife and dependent children to
co-reside is also fundamental and underlies our policy approach to
the reunion of immediate family members.
15. In humanitarian terms, Australia is a signatory to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant
of Civil and Political Rights and the 1951 Convention on the Status
of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. As such and as a responsible
member of the international community, Australia has a proud record
of finding solutions for refugees from around the world and has
accepted significant numbers of refugees for resettlement: 470,000
in the last 40 years; 175,000 since 1975. Our efforts have
contributed to the welfare of individual refugees, enhanced our
high international standing and strengthened our participation in
regional and international affairs.
16. Mr President, bearing this important background in mind I now
turn to the Government's response to the Committee's report. The
Committee made 73 separate recommendations for immigration
including a totally new package of legislation. The number and
complexity of the recommendations require lengthy and detailed
explanation which time does not permit. I propose instead to
12
[56]
ATTACHMENT A
inform Honourable Senators of the broad themes and principles

behind the Government's decisions. The Government has adopted many
of the themes of the Committee's report and the substance of many
of its recommendations. In some areas the Government supports the
underlying concepts, although the approach adopted differs in
detail . In others, the Government's response diverges
significantly from the Committee's proposals. In essence, many of
the recommendations confirm current policy directions.
17. No response on the complex question of immigration will ever
receive wholesale and unquestioning support from all quarters of
Australia, nor are there any magic answers to meet the wishes of
all. The Government's task is to find the right balance to achieve
outcomes in the national interest and to accord due weight to the
competing and often conflicting demands placed upon immigration.
18. Mr President, the Government accepts the Committee's message
that immigration is for all Australians and that it should be in
the national inte~st.
Consi~ent with these principles, we have
decided on a responsible immigration policy for the future which
will balance economic, social and humanitarian imperatives and
which will assist in national planning through immigration research
and management. Central to this process is the Government's
acceptance of the Committee's recommendations for the establishment
of a Bureau of Immigration Research, to which I will return later,
and Immigration Outlook Conferences, which will enable us in future
to indicate longer term forecasts, and to foster national
understanding of immigration.
19. In the meantime, the migration program for the next two to
three years is to be maintained at 140,000 places, comprising three
main streams: 69,000 in a family category, 56,000 in an economic
'category and 14,000 in a humanitarian category, plus a special
eligibility category of 1,000 places. While both the level and
composition are broadly consistent with the Committee's proposals,
its recommendQtion for 150,000 places is not regarded as justified.
The Committee also recommended alignment of Migrant and Grant of
Resident Status Policies. These are significantly aligned at
present but complete alignment would create undesirable
consequences for program management . Instead the Government will
continue to account for Grant of Resident Status Approvals within
the total planned migration program but will assign them to their
respective program elements. The Government has also not accepted
the Committee's recommendation that there be a single 'Open
13
[57]
ATTACHMENT A
Category'; this is seen as too blunt an instrument for achieving

program objectives. Instead, the Family and Economic Categories
will comprise elements of the present Independent and Concessional
Category and each will have a different points test to manage the
demand for migration places in order to maintain the program level
set by the Government.
20. The points system was developed by a National Population
Council Working Party under the Chairmanship of Glen Withers,
Professor of Economics at Latrobe University, following extensive
research and model simulation, together with consultation with peak
employer, employee and community groups, taking the Committee's
proposed system as the basis for development. Under the points
system accepted by the Government, independent applicants will be
nurne~ically assessed against an employability factor which assesses
skill, age and language, while extended family migrants will be
sep~rately assessed on the basis of points awarded for
emp~oyability (excluding language), relationship, citizenship,
settlement and location.
21. Within the Family Migration Category , a 'balance of family'
criterion will apply from tomorrow to parents applying for
migration overseas and for the grant of resident. status within
Australia. Those parents with more children in Australia than in
any single country or at least an equal number in Australia as
overseas, will be selected as close family. Those not meeting this
criterion may be considered under the points system for extended
family. In recognition of rising welfare costs the Government has
revised the basis of the Assurance of Support which currently is
sought from sponsors of parents who are within 10 years of retiring
age. These will continue to be required, but from April 1989 their
provisions will extend to recovery of unemployment benefit paid to
the person assured and the Assurance itself will have effect for 5
years. In future Assurances of support will also be sought for all
parents selected under the balance of family criterion.
22. The Economic Migration Category will contain as base elements
the current Business Migration Program and people nominated by
Australian employers under tripartite arrangements negotiated
between the Government, Unions and Employers. The current
Occupational Shares System will remain in place for the short-term
but will be brought together with the Independent sub-category in a
points-tested component designed to maximise economic benefits.
These changes will apply from 1 July 1989.
14
[58]
ATTACHMENT A
23. In 1989/90 the base elements of the non-refugee part of the

program will be close Family Migrants (spouses, dependent children
and parents selected under balance of family) in the Family
Category and skilled and business migrants in the Economic
Category. Program allocations for these elements will respond to
demand for places. The two points-tested components of the program
will be independently adjusted up or down according to demand in
the base elements and will be managed under a 'floating passmark'
which the Committee recommended to ensure that the best are
selected and that numbers in the overall program are not exceeded.
24. Mr President, the Government's commitment to refugee matters
is strong and will be maintained. While noting that resettlement
is the least preferred response to refugee situations, the
Committee regarded our refugee and humanitarian response as
exemplary and as a vital part of our overall immigration program.
The humanitarian category will be held to its current program level
of 14,000 comprising a 12,500 program for those selected overseas
under our Refugee and Special Humanitarian Programs and those in
Australia granted resident status on refugee and humanitarian
grounds, together with a contingency reserve of 1,500 places.
This refugee and humanitarian response is a realistic reflection of
need and is similar to the program recommended by the Committee.
25. Australia's commitment to finding durable solutions to the 13
year Indo-Chinese outflow has been demonstrated in a number of
ways, but probably in no better way than our resettlement program.
We will not "disengage" from Indo-Chinese refugee resettlement, as
the Committee suggested, but we will closely monitor the outflow
from Indo-China and respond to changes as and when they occur.
Accordingly, we believe that a range of measures and responses are
required over and above resettlement to meet this change, including
improved migration programs from the countries of Indo-China and
international initiatives to address the continuing outflow. The
Government is not attracted to the Committee's proposal that
program places be set aside for agency sponsorships, but recognises
that churches and voluntary agencies are often well placed to
identify specific cases in grave emergency situations. We will
examine sympathetically how such agencies can contribute to the
speedy handling of such emergency cases and to their support after
arrival in Australia. The Committee also proposed in its Model
Bill that an independent Refugee Commissioner be appointed to hear
on-shore refugee claims in place of the current Determination of
15
[59]
ATTACHMENT A
Refugee Status procedure which has operated under a number of

Australian Governments of all persuasions. The Government has
decided instead, to retain the existing determination procedure and
enhance it by allocating additional staff and resources to improve
and speed up processing.
26. The Model Bill also proposes the abolition of the Migration
Act provisions, which deem arrivals who have been refused entry,
not to have entered Australia. The Government believes this would
create a certain 'pull' factor and could place Australia in a
situation faced in other countries where there are tens of
thousands of on-shore refugee claimants. The Government has not
been able to accept this proposal. Arrangements will be made for
people determined unable to remain, but who are without valid
national travel documents, to be issued a travel document to
facilitate their departure.
27. Given the extreme sensitivity and complexity of Refugee
policy, I wish to announce that a senior positior" within my
Department has been assigned to coordinate our response to refugee
and international immigration matters.
28. While a minor special eligibility category is ' to be
maintained, the existing provisions under this category for the
permanent entry of self-supporting retirees will be abolished. No
new applications will be accepted from tomorrow. Provision will,
however, exist for temporary entry for extended stay, which will
avoid any demand on the social welfare system.
29. Mr President, the Committee rightly identified problems which
exist in procedures for assessing and recognising overseas
qualifications. This issue was raised almost without exception at
every consultation I held throughout Australia during September.
The problems have been with us for decades and despite some recent
improvements and a number of current initiatives many of them
remain. The National Population Council Working Party on overseas
qualifications under the Chai~.anship of Professor Stephen Castles,
Director of the Centre for Multicultural Studies at Wollongong
University, has identified inefficiencies in wasted skills and
labour market rigidities, and inequities in inconsistent
administration and outcomes. Taking into account current
Commonwealth and State initiatives it has proposed a model for the
recognition of overseas qualifications.
The Government notes the
useful contribution made by the National Population Council Working
Party. It proposes to consider the model with other related
16
[60]
ATTACHMENT A
inquiries on the issue in the context of skill accreditation in

Australia generally.
30.
The Committee made a number of recommendations concerning
settlement services starting from the basis that my Department
should shift priority to those who have been in Australia for less
than two years. Rather than being prescriptive on a time frame,
the Government has agreed, in this spirit, that my Department
should concentrate its settlement programs on the needs-based
provision of services for immigrants, with the aim of helping
migrants to integrate into the Australian community and to reach
their potential. Consistent with this aim my Department will
refocus its settlement activities, paying particular attention to
targeting its programs to priority needs of annual intakes
according to the indi,idual's circumstances of migration. Support
for women immigrants will continue to be given priority, as one of
the areas critical t0 the settlement process. My Department's
strategic role in settlement will be clarified by phasing out
duplication where it exists with other agencies having regard to
their access and equity commitments.
31. Mr President, I referred earlier to the Bureau of Immigration
Research which the Committee recommended be established. The
Committee was critical of the lack of policy-oriented research and
statistical information available to the Government and of the
capacity to produce it . I do not necessarily accept that as a
criticism of my Department, where priority is given to its very
high volume visa activity. The Government, however, readily
accepts the need that the Committee has identified and is to
establish a Bureau early next year. The Bureau will have an
important role in providing facts to combat ignorance and
misinformation about immigration and in improving the climate in
which immigration issues are considered. The Bureau will have the
resources for predominantly commissioned research and will also
undertake some in-house research. It will undertake formal and
informal consultations, including the Immigration Outlook
Conferences proposed by the Committee. It will also have a vital
role to play in facilitating policy development in my Department .
32. Mr President, I now turn to the Committee's proposals for new
Immigration legislation . The Migration Act 1958 has come under
increasing scrutiny and attack in recent years, and proposals for
reform were put forward by both the Administrative Review Council
and the former Human Rights commission. The Committee proposed the
17
[61]
ATTACHMENT A
complete replacement of the Act with a new piece of legislation and

produced a model Bill for this purpose. The Model Bill is an
innovative and bold piece of work; it would make changes of the
most fundamental kind to existing migration law. But, as bold and
innovative pieces of work often do, it carries certain risks and
uncertainties with it, both as to costs and policy and program
management. The Government has decided that rather than
undertaking radical change, the better course is to pursue reform
of the existing Migration Act 1958 and Migration Regulations
incrementally. This also has the advantage of allowing changes to
be made more quickly. Key amendments will be introduced in the
Autumn Session of Parliament. These will lay the groundwork for
accountable and consistent decision-making in the immigration
jurisdiction.
33. The major change will be the phased introduction of a two-tier
system of review of immigration decisions. The first tier will be
an independent review unit within my Department. The second tier
will be the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Classes of decision
will be progressively ~eferred to this new review system.
Concurrently, the wide discretions within the Migration Act for
these classes of decision will be replaced by closely defined
entitlements and restrictions set out in Regulations. The
Secretary of my Department will be designaied as the decision-maker
for most classes of decision, although I shall retain the power to
determine and review refugee status. I shall also retain a general
power to override any decision required by the legislation in the
public interest, but where this occurs I shall table my reasons in
the Parliament. The staged implementation of review will permit
progressive assessment of the new review system. The feedback
provided will enable adjustment of the system, minimising the risk
of cost blowouts and unintended consequences.
34. The CAAIP Model Bill provided for many of the enforcement
functions relating to prohibited non-citizens to be carried out
through the state law enforcement and justice systems. This
so-called criminalisation of enforcement has been widely opposed as
harsh and heavy handed. It also places a potentially heavy burden
on the state police, court and penal systems. The Government will
not be taking this course. However, it is concerned to ensure that
the deportation process is both just and effective. The
introduction of external review by the AAT ensures that a person's
claims to stay in Australia, temporarily or permanently, will be
18
[62]
ATTACHMENT A
rigorously and impartially tested. If those claims are found to be

wanting, then departure should follow and if the person fails to
depart within the time provided, deportation will be mandatory.
35. I have highlighted certain areas where the Government's
decisions do not precisely follow the Model Bill. I would
emphasise, however, that while the Bill will not be introduced into
Parliament in its recommended form, its ideas and innovations will
be drawn upon in reforming the Migration Act 1958.
36. Mr President, the Government's decisions on the Committee's
report which I have announced represent an equitable and balanced
approach to immigration. We have maintained our commitment to
social and humanitarian needs in a responsible and responsive
manner, while at the same time addressing an economic focus to
immigration. The program size and composition for the immediate
future is a realistic reflection of competing demands and
priorities. It will continue to provide for the reunion of close
family. Extended family will be specifically recognised through a
separate points-tested category within the Family Migration stream .
The economic focus will be achieved by enhanced selection
mechanisms under tripartite negotiated arrangements between
Government, Unions and Employers, and under a revised points system
for independent applicants stressing economic qualities.
Humanitarian programs have been maintained and procedures for the
Determination of Refugee status in Australia are to be enhanced.
37. Improved management of the program under the 'floating
passmark' concept will ensure that annual intakes are kept within
planning figures and do not simply respond to demand. The new
Bureau of Immigration Research and under its aegis, the Immigration
Outlook Conferences, will improve the climate of immigration by
providing necessary research and information for improved planning
and understanding. The Migration Act and Regulations will be
incrementally overhauled to ensure fairer and more accountable
decision making in my portfolio.
38. Mr President, the measures I have announced involve major
reforms to immigration policy and administration. The Government
has struck a responsible balance between the economic, social and
humanitarian objectives of the immigration program. We have
designed a system of program management which will deliver the
planned outcomes. Through our emphasis on a strong research base,
we are bringing immigration into the mainstream of economic and
social planning. Nor have we lost sight of the individual. The
19
[63]
ATTACHMENT A
changes to the legislative framework will ensure that

administration is demonstrably open, consistent and equitable. The
principle of equity is fundamental to this entire package. It is
about giving all people a fair chance within the context of a
program that serves the interests of the Australian people. I am
also glad to announce that these reforms are expected to r.esult in
a net reduction in Commonwealth expenditure in the long term.
39. I thank Honourable Senators for hearing me today on this
important package of decisions by the Government on the Report of
the Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies.
20
ATTACHMENT B
INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS
A
B
Draft Statement to Parliament

Index of Attachments
C
D
Public Reaction to CAAIP

Matrix of Recommendations
E
F
Immigration Objectives
Guiding Principles for Immigration Polici es
Program Size and Composition
Economic Migration
Points Test
Recognition of Overseas Qualifications
Family Migration
Refugee and Humanitarian Entry
Settltment
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
Accountable Decision Making

Enforcement
Migration Act Amendments
Immigration Research and Information
Resource Summary
Summary of Recommendations
Views of Caucus Committee on Immigration,
Local Government and Ethnic Affairs
CGnsultation Comments
[64]
21
[65]
ATTACHMENT C
PUBLIC REACTION TO CAAIP

RECOMMENDATION
1.
I recommend that Cabinet note the summary of public reaction
to CAAIP in this Attachment.
2.
Following tabling of the report on 3 June this year, a period
of 3 months was set aside for public evaluation of and comment on
its findings. During this period, well over 1,000 articles and
'letters to the editor' appeared in the mainstream and ethnic
media. By and large, initial mainstream press reaction was factual
and favourable, while the ethnic press gave it a hostile reception.
Media attention initially focused on the more contentious areas of
multiculturalism and citizenship, diverting debate from the more
important and fundamental issues treated in the report. More
detailed analysis of the report which ensued tended to be critical
of its findings. By August, following statements made by the
Opposition Leader, attention had shifted to reporting on the
revival of the 'Asian Migration' debate.
3.
A series of seminars was organised by immigration interest
groups, principal among which was that convened by the Federation
of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, which tended to set
the tone for the responses from other ethnic organisations and
individuals. The Conference, held in Sydney at the end of July was
well organised, attended and orchestrated.
4.
In addition, some 124 letters to the Minister about CAAIP, and
some 128 formal submissions offering detailed comment on CAAIP's
findings were received. During September, I visited the capital
city of each State and Territory and heard first hand the views of
a wide range of people representing ethnic, business, union,
religious, welfare, refugee, population and legal interests. The
views expressed to me during these consultations closely reflected
opinions expressed via the media and formal submissions.
5.
On 16 September, I met in Melbourne with my State and
Territory counterparts to consider those aspects of CAAIP which
directly affected them. Ministers reported a mixed and mostly
negative public reaction to CAAIP. Most Ministers supported
CAAIP's proposals on program size and composition, particularly as
they related to balancing family and economic migration. Concern
was, however, expressed about the impact of CAAIP's proposals on
the current concessional sub-category. Reservations were expressed
about CAAIP's proposed 2 year cut-off for DILGEA-provided
settlement services. Ministers welcomed CAAIP's identification of
CABINET-IN .. CONFIDENCE
22
[66]
ATTACHMENT C
the problems inherent in unrecognised qualifications and reported a

number of initiatives in which they were engaged which might assist
in remedying the situation.
6.
Despite invitations from the Prime Minister in August to
Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to
provide a broader State/Territory perspective on CAAIP, no formal
response had been received by the time of drafting this Submission,
although some initial drafts were provided.
7.
The principal CAAIP themes, and reaction to them by broad
interest groups are detailed below .
CENTRAL ISSUES
8.
A sharp division of opinion emerged, in community reaction to
the CAAIP report's central recommendations. While immigration
based on the national interest was generally welcomed,
interpretations of what constituted 'the national interest' varied
from group to group. CAAIP's interpretation, requiring a
substantially skilled and entrepreneurial intake, was welcomed by
the business sector but rejected by other interest groups as being
narrow and short-sighted. CAAIP's analysis of the relationship
between immigration and the economy was endorsed by some union
groups but not by others although they were unanimous that CAAIP's
emphasis on economic migration could only be put into place if the
complementary package of recommendations designed to commit the
Government to upgrading Australia's domestic workforce were also
acted upon. They also stressed the danger of relying on imported
skills and considered employers to have evaded their training
responsibilities in the past. Voluntary agencies and ethnic groups
rejected what they saw as an over-emphasis on skilled migration and
felt that CAAIP had ignored the contribution to the economy of
family reunion migrants and humanitarian migrants over the last
forty years. They sought a re-orientation of the program towards
social and humanitarian migration, claiming that these brought the
best migrants as skilled migrants had much higher departure rates.
One view held that CAAIP had been so one-eyed that it was necessary
to form a further Committee to examine the social benefits of
migration.
9.
A similar division of opinion existed over CAAIP's discussion
of multiculturalism. Business groups felt that while cultural
diversity did not endanger social cohesion, nonetheless it would be
better if cultural diversity were not pursued as an end in itself
and emphasis were given to commitment to Australian institutions .
CABINET-IN-CONFID ENCE
23
[67]
ATTACHMENT C
Union and ethnic groups and voluntary agencies rejected what they
termed CAAIP's 'crisis mentality', saying that CAAIP's conclusions
on multiculturalism lacked evidentiary support and that they were,
in any event, outside its brief. They pointed to Australia's
proven capacity to absorb migrants of various ethn i cities and a
lack of real racial conflict in Australia. Some of these groups
agreed that multiculturalism was misunderstood by many Australians
but added that CAAIP had done little to dispel that, and that the
onus was on the Government to act positively.
10. There was almost unanimous support for the continuation of a
non-discriminatory intake policy, and broad-based support for
bringing immigration into the mainstream of Government
policy-making. Some criticised elements of the CAAIP report as
unjustified or inadequately ~ddressed. Principal among these were
CAAIP's economic rationale and proposed program size. Conservation
groups felt that the capacity of Australia to support an increased
population had been inadequately addressed.
ECONOMIC MIGRATION
11 . A similar dichotomy emerged in attitud~s towards economic
migration and CAAIP's Open Category. Business groups wanted to
maintain the BMP and the Employer Nominee Scheme (ENS) as separate
entities but otherwise felt that the proposed order of selection
factors w ~ thin the Open Category was on the right track. The
smaller States sought a mechanism for attracting a more equitable
share of migrants. Union and ethnic groups and voluntary agencies
expressed opposition to the priorities attached to the tests for
the proposed Open Category and opposed the inclusion of an English
language test . All wanted more emphasis given to kinship.
SOCIAL MIGRATION
12. The business ' sector generally supported the continuation of
family migration at current levels, provided a sharper economic
focus was allowed for elsewhere in the program . Other interest
groups while favouring an expansion of family migration, generally
opposed the proposal to include parents under 55 years of age in
the Open Category . The inclusion of grandparents in the family
reunion element of the program drew little, but mostly favourable,
comment. Ethnic groups argued strongly for extended family
migration to be included in the family reunion category, thus
avoiding the assessment process in the Open Category. They also
sought a further extension to the concept of family.
24
[68]
ATTACHMENT C

13. There was fairly broad-based support for CAAIP's proposed
program of 150,000 although many ethnic groups and some business
groups called for a higher figure. Union groups made it clear that
their acceptance of that figure was contingent upon CAAIP's package
of recommendations on training and negotiated arrangements being
accepted. There was less agreement on program composition: ethnic
groups sought greater emphasis on social and humanitarian
migration; some business groups wanted a still greater proportion
to be dedicated to economic migration; refugee interests called for
a humanitarian component of up to 20,000. Conservation groups and
some individuals called for a substantial reduction of or halt to
immigration.
C'J:TIZENSHIP
14. CAAIP's coercive approach to encourage the taking up of
citizenship was almost universally rejected. There was, however,
considerable support for the notion that the value of citizenship
be promoted. Several groups, including some individuals
representing ethnic interests, did support the recommendation that
the right to sponsor migrants be confined to citizens.
SETTLEMENT
15. The proposal that DILGEA settlement services be focused upon
the first two years after a migrant's arrival in Australia was
opposed by the ethnic community, voluntary agencies and welfare
providers as unnecessarily prescriptive and inadequately addressed.
While there was some support for the recommendation from unions, it
was contingent upon the Government's clearly articulating the way
in which mainstream government services would continue to provide a
similar level of service to that currently existing. There was a
view that mainstreaming was too often a cloak for cost-cutting.
REFUGEES
16. CAAIP's recommendation that the refugee component of the
program be increased to 15,000 (including an unspecified
contingency figure, perhaps up to 3,000) received considerable
broad-based support although refugee interest groups were anxious
to see the figure raised still further to 20,000. It was also
suggested, however, that the refugee intake might become a fixed
proportion of the migration program and some concern was expressed
that CAAIP's unspecified contingency figure would provide a
mechanism for actually reducing the size of the refugee intake.
The suggestion that Australia gradually disengage from Indo-Chinese
CABINET-
-CONFIDENCE
25
[69]
ATTACHMENT C
resettlement was not welcomed by most groups with particularly

strong opposition from the refugee interest groups and the Asian
ethnic communities. It was considered that such a move was highly
inappropriate at a time when the refugee out-flow from Indo-China
was increasing.
17 . . cAAIP's recommendation that community organisations become
involved in refugee selection was enthusiastically received by
refugee interest groups although there were calls for sufficient
government funding to enable them to become involved. There were
also calls for more funded places beyond the 7500 recommended by
CAAIP. The expansion of the Community Refugee Settlement Scheme
was supported.
OVERSEAS QUALIFICATIONS RECOGNITION
18. The recommendation that the National Board of Employment,
Education and Training (NBEET) develop a strategy for integrating
accreditation procedures, within the relevant Federal body
responsible for labour market planning, drew different reactions
from business groups.and other interest groups. The former opposed
the recommendation as it was considered that the Central Trades
Committees (CTCs) should continue in their present role of having
informal discussions with State and Territory trade recognition and
licensing authorities to exchange information and encourage
national co-ordination where it does not exist. Ethnic groups,
voluntary agency groups and the unions all endorsed CAAIP's call
for action on the qualifications recognition front and approved of
its identification of skills recognition, bridging and upgrading as
areas of government spending deserving priority.
19. The general view was that emphasis should be placed on
recognition of skills rather than qualifications and that tertiary
institutions should be involved in the assessment process. All
groups were concerned at the waste of unrecognised skills.
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION RESEARCH
20. The recommendation that a Bureau of Immigration ReRearch be
established received strong broad-based support as it was felt that
insufficient data was available on population, ethnicity and
economic issues.
LEGISLATION
21. It was generally considered that an overhaul of the 1958
Migration Act was long overdue. Legal groups expressed conflicting
desires to see a new Bill introduced quickly but also for a period
of public discussion of any proposed legislation to be allowed for.
26
[70]
ATTACHMENT C
The style of the proposed legislation was considered inadequate by

many of these groups which sought 'plain English' in the drafting
of new legislation.
22. With regard to the 1-tier review model proposed, legal, ethnic
and service provider groups were almost unanimous in their call for
a 2-tier model similar to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal
(SSAT) system (where there is appeal to the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal after a first hearing by the SSAT).
23. Legal groups rejected CAAIP's proposal that the enforcement
process be incorporated into the criminal justice system as the
courts were already overburdened.
24. Voluntary agencies, refugee and legal groups supported the
establishment of a new system for the DORS. There was not a great
deal of support for CAAIP's proposed single Retugee Commissioner:
some sought a panel of Commissioners; others calling for a system
still based in a Government Department, though many did not want to
see DILGEA involved. Many groups called for wpen hearings at which
applicants could represent themselves or be represented by
fawyers/social workers. The desire for an additional independent
avenue for review of refugee cases, preferably by the AAT, was
strongly voiced.
25. Legal groups strongly supported the recommendation that policy
be codified in legislation. It was suggested that all policy
should be codified in this way but that it should be in only one
set of subordinate legislation, not in both regulations and rules,
as suggested by CAAIP.
27
ATTACHMENT D
MATRIX OF RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
1.
(a) note the IDC conclusions on the Matrix of recommendations
which appears overleaf; and
(b) agree with the Government response which appears in the
Matrix.
[71]
[72]
RECD~IMENDAT
IONS
CONCLUSIONS
Definitions
1.
That the Australian Bureau of Statistics' definition of Asia
be revised to exclude the countries west of India, Pakistan and
Afghanistan.
1-3
:::0
IOC:
Suppor~ed.
Government:
Consistent with recent moves QY ABS.
:Y.
0
Accepted
hj
('")
l>
-m2
Philosophy
2.
That the Government aff1rm its commitment to immigrat10n
po.l1c1es wh1ch are non-discnmnatory in respect of national
lr ethnic orig1n, r :Jce, sex or rel1ginn, and that tlus pnnc1ple
be assel'teJ in all relevant puhllshed information.
aJ
-;-4
-2
3.
That the Government affirm a comm1tment to an Immigration
philosophy wh1ch w1ll produce as we enter the 21st century such
outcomes in society as are outlined in Chapter 1 of the Repo1t
and the immigration philosophy be further developed and refined
on th1s bas1s and communicated broadly to the Australian community.
c
m
z
t:!
WC:
H
0,_,
"-'
(,')
Qualified Support. Agreed that immigration philos ophy should

be developed and widely communicated within community.
Substance of philosophy needs to be considered further in
light of decisions on various aspects of Chapter 1, and on
other specific recommendations.
I\.)
4.
That imm1grat1on policies be developed in the national
interest and for all Australians, and that in the ph1losophy of
immigration emphasis is given to Australia, the Australian
identity and commi tment to Australia.
IDC:
Supported. It should be made clear that there is no conflict

in recommendation w1th concept of a multicultural Australia.
The Prime Minister's recent statements on principle of
commitment to Australia within the context of mult1cultural
society are noted in this regard.
Govt: Accepted
5.
That immigration be dealt with centrally, to ensure that it is
brought properly within the mainstream of government deliberations
and dealt with as an aspect of mainstream policy making and
strategic thinking on important economic and social issues.
IDC:
Supported. Term "brought within mainstream" interpreted as

meaning that immigration policy should be formulated in
context of broader economic and social policy developments.
\
Govt: Accepted
l>
-2
to
00
('")
trl
.....,.
.__.
>'
f--)
Govt: Accepted in part: basis of immigration philosophy to be

defined by Government.
('")
,-z
Supported and consistent with current policy, although precise

wording needs to be brought into line w1th R9(V), whi ch
reflects our international obligations.
Govt: Accepted
IDC:
n
0
""
-2~
I
('")
,-2
c
z
('")
[73]
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
6.
That the principle whereby immigration polic ie s are not
determine d by bilateral relations be reaffirmed, and that we
should continue to pursue our international obi igations and
humanitarian objectives through the established international
networks.
IDC:
l>
-2
tD
m
-;-4
2I
n
0
-0
"'T1
Support for principle that immigration policies not be

Principl~ does not impede
Government from taking into account AustralIa's international
interests in developing pol icy. AustralIa should continue to
pursue its international obi igations and humanitari a n
objectives through the established international networks.
determine~ by bilateral relations.
Govt: Accepted
7.
That immigration not be used to ease the economic or political
problems of particular countries or communities, recognising, however,
that refugee policies and programs may be based on an assessment of the
situation In a particular country.
IDC:
l>
Supported. DFAT, however, considers that there is a case, on

grounds of national Interest, for making an exception for
smaller South Pacific states.
-2
tD
m
-;-4
2
Govt: Accepted
8.
That government develop and explain to the public a rationale
for Immigration, proceeding from the philosophy outlined In this
Report and addressing the contribution of Immigration to national
economic and social objectives and the link between the two, and
the national and International context In which Immigration takes
place.
9.
That the following be adopted as the guiding principles for
immigration policies and that they be publicised extensively In
the communIty.
1.
The Austral ian Government alone wi I I determine who wl I I be
admitted to AustralIa consistent with laws enacted by the
Federal Parliament to regulate immigration.
ii.
Only an Australian citizen or holder of a valid resident
visa has a right to e~ter Australia.
iii. Immigration pol lcles wi II be determined by Australia's
national Interests as defined by major government policies
and strategies for AustralIa's social, economic and cultural
development. Pol icles wi I I seek a harmony of outcomes
between economic and social interests.
i v.
Immigration wi I I respond to the needs of individuals by
upholding close f amily r e union and humanit ari an as sistance.
IDC:
Govt: Accepted In part:

Government.
IDC:
Supported, although substance of rationale wl I I not derive

solely from philosophy of the report.
basis of philosophy to be defined by
Supported in principle subject to refinement of wording:
tv
1.!)
n
0
2
-0
"'T1
m
2
jv ,
close family r e union should be understood as hu s ba nd , wi f e

and depende nt c h i ldr e n.
[74]
[1]
('")
)>
to
-2
-;-1
2
('")
0
2
-n
-c
m
2
('")
RECOM'>IENDATIONS
COIKLUS IONS
v.
v.
slightly )nconsistent with R2; wording shoul~ reflect

international conventions of which Australia Is signatory.
vi.
insert 'Individuals and' before 'family units'.
vii.
use of the term "require" is inappropriate, Imp I y i ng

legislative provisions to enforce compliance.
In selecting between one individual and another, immigration

pol Icy wi I I be non-discriminatory on grounds of race, colour,
descent or national or ethnic origin, sex and rei igion.
vi.
Applicants may be considered for immigration as family units
but wi I I not be considered as canmunity groups.
vii. Immigrants wi I I be required to respect the institutions and
principles which are basic to Australian society, Including
pari iamentary democracy, the rule of law and equality before
the law, freedom of the individual, freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, freedom of religion, equality of women
universal education. Reciprocally, Australia wi I I be canmitted
to facl lltatlng the equal participation of Immigrants In
society.
viii. Citizenship wi I I be given due recognition as a symbol of
commitment to AustralIa and its future, and be associated with
a requirement to respect Australia's institutions and principles.
i x.
Australia wl II encourage the entry of visitors to Australia for
the purpose of fostering trade and commerce, tourism, cultural
and scientific activities and international understanding.
x.
Immigration policies wl I I be determined and Implemented In such
a way as to maintain and protect the health, safety and good
order of Austral I an society.
Training/Retraining Obligations
10.
That in the adoption and Implementation of any of the
measures proposed In this Report tor the selection of ski I led
lrrmlgrants, there should be concomitant measures, including
particularly negotiated arrangements to ensure that the
commitment and the obligation of employers and education
authorities to train and retrain Australians are lui ly and
properly discharged.
Settlement Faci litatlon
I 1.
That the Department adopt as an objective a shift in priority
in settlement services to those who have been here for less than
two years, and that the needs of immigrants who have been here
for more than two years become the responsibl lty of other
service delivery and appropriate pol icy departments: Social
Security; Health and Community Services; Employment,
Education and Training; Industry, Technology and Connerce;
and Industrial Relations.
('")
)>
vi 11. use of the term
"requiremen~'
-m
2
m
Is inappropriate.
74
-2
Govt: Accepted as a framework subject to some refinement.
w
0
('")
0
2
-c
"T1
IDC:
Qual I fled support.

General concept supported with caution expressed with resp~ct
to role of negotiated arrangements Imp I lcit in recommendation.
m
2
Govt: Accepted
('")
m
IDC:
Qual if led support. General approach to focus on rec tJ nt

arrivals and Initial settlement services supported. Strict
time frame not supported. Recognition that some services are
needed for only a short timeframe while others cannot be
arbitrarily I imited tor reasons of practicality and
efficiency.
Govt: r\ccepted dS a ba s i ~ for pri 1Jritising se r vi Cl

as a rigid formula.
d e liv ~ r/
but not
[75]
[2]
n
)>
to
-2
-f
I
-2
I
RECOHME~DA TIONS
CONCLUSIONS
12.
That in public spending, priority be given to four areas
whi ch the Committee 1dent1fies as critical to the settlement
process: Eng! ish, skills recognit10n and bridging and upgrading,
support for women immigrants and interpreting and translations services.
IDC:
13.
Trat responsibility for adult i~nigrant education be
transferred to the Department of Employment, Education and
Training for immigrants who have been 1n Austral1a for more than
two years.
14.
That much greater use be made of distance learn1ng for the
teaching of English, in particular by making max i mum use of the
Spec i al Broadcasting Service (rad1o and televis i on), 1ncluding
provision of funding for new SBS programs, which should also be
offered for use by the ABC and on non prime-time commercial
television in regional areas.
15.
That resources be made available to allow for 12 months of
intensive English as a Second Language for every immigrant
ch i ld who has the need.
"TT
IDC:
Not supported.
Govt: Not AcceptLd
IDC:
IDC:
Supported with acknowledgement that some of these tn i tiatives

are already in tra i n.
-2
m
-;-1
-2
Supported as policy benchmark subject to budgetary

considerations.
IDC:
Supported with DEET requesting improved co-ordination between

adult ESL programs and right to retain special provision
within industry restructuring plans.
Govt: Accepted
17.
That a further phase in the current affirmative action
legislation, the Government take the necessary legislative action
to ensure equal employment opportunities for immigrants in the
private sector.
n
)>
Govt: Accepted
16.
That English. language programs be an integral part of all
appropriate industry restructuring plans which require the skills
of workers to be further developed and enhanced.
n
m
Govt: Accepted
Govt: Accepted as a policy benchmark subject to budgetary

considerations.
0
2
-mc
Supported with the understanding that women immigrants are a

priority target group within general areas, of identified need.
IDC:
Not supported - implementation at this time (pending review of

effectiveness of current legislation and pending all segments
of private sector coming under current provisions) would he
premature.
Govt: Not accepted for immediate implementation.
I-'
0
2
"TT
m
2
n
m
[76]
[3]
RECOMMENDATIONS
Citizenship
18.
That government examine ways of restricting public benefits
to non-citizens as a means of enhancing the value of citizenship,
beg i nn i ng with non-survival benefi ts.
CONCLUSIONS
IDC:
Not supported due to coercive element (ref~r Prime Minister's

Cit i zensh i p Ceremony Speech, Preston, 19 July 1988.)
Govt: Not accepted
l>
al
2
m
7'
2
I
n
0
2
-n
-c
n
m
19.
That entitlement to sponsor i mmigrants be l i mited to
Australian citizens, except in instances where those being
sponsored are spouses, dependent children, or refugee/humanitarian
cases.
20.
That citizenship ceremonies be made more meaningful by
l i nking the grant of c itizenship with a declaration to respect
fundamental inst i tut i ons and princ i ples i n Australian society,
and that th i s declarat i on be foreshadowed when immigrants are
selected.
IDC:
Supported - defacto spouses in Australia may also need to be

excepted.
n
)>
Govt: Not accepted

IDC:
-2
al
Supported in principle.
Govt: Accepted as a concept for further development.
m
-1
I
Poss1ble Ci tizenship Declaration.

I undertake to respect the laws of Australia and fulfil
my duties as an Australian c i t i zen.
I wi ll endeavour to inform myself about the princ i ples
upon which these laws, and related instl tutions, are based.
I undertake to accept and respect the 1nst i tut1ons and
pr i nc i ples of Austral i an soc1ety, i nclud i ng parl i amentary
democracy, the rule of law and equality before the law,
freedom of the i ndividual, freedom of speech, freedom of
the press, freedom of relig1on, equality of women, un i versal
education.
I undertake to accept and respect the princ i ple of nondiscriminat i on on grounds of race, colour, descent and
national or ethnic origin which informs the laws and
institutions of Australian soc i ety and the i mmi gration
policy of Australia and under which I have taken up
res i dence i n Austral i a and thereby become entitled to
Austral i an c i tizensh i p.
w
N
2I
0
2
-n
m
2
n
m
[77]
[4]
n
)>
-z
OJ
7'
-z
I
n
0
z
"TI
-c
z
n
m
RECONNENDA 1 IONS
CONCLUSIONS
That a group of emi nent Austral1ans should be appointed to advise on

21.
further ways of making cit i zensh1p a more mean1ngful comm1tment to
Australia and of encouraging its acquisition.
!DC:
Time Frame
22.
That
At any one
years with
and Program Size

planning be in the form of a 10 year rolling forecast.
time there should be a fixed intake for the first three
an indicat1ve intake for the following seven years.
23.
That there be a program of 150 000 per annum from 1988/89
until 1990/91. Until such time as the changes to immigration
categories and selection have been effected, the program should
be in pro rata terms. The first full year at 150 000 would be
1989/90, and this would be maintained for 1990/91.
Supported subject to funding.
Govt: Overtaken by the Year of Citizenship.
!DC:
Not supported. Need for flexibility outweighs arguments for

long-term program.
Govt: To be examined further in the light of detailed research

through the Bureau of Irm~igration Research.
n
)>
IOC:
-2ta
Not supported. Program size need to be argued on sound

economic grounds and social objectives, component by
component. level of migration should be determined as
estimate rather than target.
m
-1
I
-2
Govt: Not accepted

24.
That until the Government assesses that it has the program
right, more substantial increases not be contemplated.
IOC:
Not Supported.
and demand.
Programs should be justified on basis of need
Govt: Not accepted. The ' program size should be determined by

Government priorities.
25.
That the im~igration program in the period to June 1991 be
carefully monitored to assess whether the introduction of
perspective planning, improved selection, (that is the emphasis
on youth, skill and entrepreneurship), and better targeted postarrival services, has increased the impact of immigration on
economic growth and improved Australia's capacity to absorb
immigrants.
IOC:
Supported.
Recommendation needs to be rewritten to reflect
accurately OILGEA's on-going monitoring and evaluation
activities.
Govt: Accepted
w
w
n
0
z
"TI
-c
m
2
n
m
[78]
[5]
n
)>
-2CD
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
26.
That the compos i tim of the program for the three years from
1988/89 (beg1nn i ng i n January 1989) to 1990/91 be as follows:
1)
Category A (Fami ly Immi grat1on) to rema1n self-determi ning,
but l i kely to increase to about 40 000;
i 1)
Category 8 (Refugee/Humanitar i an) be i ncreased to 15 000;
1 ti ) c' .ltegory C (Open Category) to form the balance of around
95 000.
IDC:
Imm1grat1on Ca tegortes
27.
That the i mmigrat i on prog r am constst of three categor i es:
Fami ly Immigration, Refugee and Humani tarian, and Open.
n
0
.,z
-c
each category should be argued separately on
('")
J DC:
)>
Not supported. Not cons i dered effective in mee tlng economic

pol i cy ob j ectives nor admi nistratively viable. An
alternative more flex i ble approach suggested.
p ...
m
2
m
-4
I
-2
eam.
w
Family Immigration
(1) That the Family Immigrat i on Category be expanded to " ~ over
28.
grandparents of Australian citizens, 55 years of age or older,
(2) that the j ob offer requirement be dropped for parents 55 years
of age and over, (3) and that parents under 55 be processed in
Open category.
z
n
m
Govt: Not accepted:

i ts ments .
Govt: Not accepted: program to cons i st of three broad streams:

Family, Humanitarian and Economi c, broken down into more
specific categories, and a separate, m1nor special el i gi b i l i ty
-;-1
2
I
Not supported. Recommendation incons i sten.t with del i vering

sharper economic focus. Each category should be argued
separately on own merits. Total Open category should not be
a res i dua l.
Refugee and Humanitarian Program

29.
That the Refugee and Humanitarian category remain as a
humani tarian prov i sion to respond to resettlement demands which
arise overseas.
of::.
IDC:
(1) Not Supported.
(2) Supported - and application of balance of family criteria.

( 3) Supported.
.,2
Govt: Not accepted. The approach to be pursued allows processing

of all parents in the Family stream where the balance of
children are in Aus t ralia; parents outside th i s class may only
apply under other categories. No special provision for '
grandparents i s proposed.
('")
IDC:
Supported subject to change in termi nology from 'resettlement

demands' to ' i nternational developments', 'resettlement
requirements' or 'resettlement needs'.
Govt: Accepted subject to change i n terminology from 'demands' to

'needs'.
>'
t-3
t-3
>'
n
::r:
:s:
trJ
t-3
[79]
[6]
)>
-2
Ol
-;-1
2
(")
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
30.
That two distinct but complementary programs be established
for refugee and humanitarian cases. One would be for people
Identified by the Australian Government as needing resettlement
on humanitarian grounds. The other would be for humanitarian
cases ld~ntlfled by community organisations with International
agency affll latlon and with the capacity to verify such cases
and provide settlement support. In all cases, It will remain the
responslbl llty of the Australian Government to decide who wl I I be
accepted for resettlement In Australia.
IDC:
31.
That in 1988/89 the government and community programs
number a tot a I of 15 000 pI aces, In whIch there shou Id be a
flexible contingency figure. The size of the program should be
reviewed after one year and the number of places reduced if the
program has not been fi I led. The Government should pay the travel
costs to AustralIa of a total of 7 500 people, of which up to
I 000 places would be avai I able for agency sponsorship. This
latter arrangement should also be reviewed at an agreed time.
32.
That funding go to those in most humanitarian need, namely
refugees and in-country rescue cases.
33.
That the existing Community Refugee Settlement Scheme be
expanded to offer support to alI refugees including agency
sponsored cases.
(")
(")
IDC:
)>
al
Not supported.
-2
Govt: Not accepted. Program set at 14,000 including contingency

reserve and grant of resident status on refugee and
humanitarian grounds.
m
-t
-2
I
IDC:
Supported and consistent with current poi icy.
Govt: Accepted
Govt: Not accepted
,-
No. :;uppo.rtl?d !...y DILGEA and PM&C. Supported. by DFAT which

advocates smal I scale pi lot scheme along these lines.
34.
That from 1988/89 Australia gradually disengage itself from
Indochinese resettlement, In line with the decreasing outflow
and diminishing number of refugees from Indochina and In the
context of positive strategies tor solutions to this problem.
IDC:
Supported and consistent with current poi icy, notiny that

agency sponsorship not supported.
u.
n
0
.,-2
0
Govt: Accepted <noting agency sponsorship not accepted).
IDC:
(")
Supported. However, question of way in which Government

should present a gradual decrease would need to be very
carefully considered.
Govt: Not accepted: approach to Indochinese resettlement should

take account of current international developments.
[80]
[7]
n
)>
-m
ttl
~
2I
0
2
.,
-c
m
2
n
m
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
That the alloca tions in the refugee program for refugees from
35.
different regions in the world cease to be regarded a~ quotas or
targets.
lllC:
36.
That Australia work in multilateral forums towards a separate
program of measures, including a legal framework, for the orderly
and humane management of mass movements of undocumented migrants.
Supporled and consi s tent with current poHcy.
Govt: Accepted
IDC:
Supported subject to replacing 'undocumented migrants' with

'people'.
n
)>
Govt: Accepted subject to clarification in wording (replace

'undocumented migrants' with 'people').
Open Category
37.
That selection for the Open category be based on three
fundamental elements:
a)
self-assessment, or the assessment by applicants of their
prospects prior to formal assessment, a process which should
help to eliminate frivolous applications;
b)
scoring on the basis of factors whi ch reflect Australia's
economic, demographic, social and cultural interests;
c)
an order of merit approach which, by taking the top scorers
from around the world, selects only enough to meet the
proposed size of the program, replacing the present system
whereby everyone who scores 70 points or more is eligible.
38.
That a task force comprising relevant government, employer
and union representatives be established to fa ci l i tate the
introduction of negotiated arrangements.
39.
That the renewal of negot i ated arrangements continue to be
conditional on the relevant i ndustry demonstrating a record of
commitment to train i ng and retraining.
IDC:
-m2
Ol
Not supported.
While some merit was perceived in (a) and (b), (c) seen as
having limited value.
-;-t
-2
Govt: Accepted as the mechanism for managing demand in the points

tested component of the program.
w
0'1
n
0
.,2
.Covt: Accepted
-c
IDC:
IDC:
Supported.
Supported. While s upporting concept of nego tiated

arrangements, should not be used to i mpose general
commitments on industry to train workers beyond fulfilling
specifi c commi tments given in prev1ous, freely negotiaterl
arrangements.
Gov t: Accepterl
n
m
u
RECOHH~NDAT
IONS
40.
That seven groups of factors should form the basis of the
selection procedure in the following order of priority: labour
market skills; entrepreneurship and special talents; age; language
capacity including English as an employability factor; kinship in
Australia; links with Australia; attributes of spouse.
CONCLUSIONS
IDC:
Qualified support. Support priority attached to

entrepreneurial skills and general directron of the work of
the NPC subject to reservations outlined. Await findings of
the NPC.
Govt: Not accepted:
n
)>
-2
tD
m
-1
I
2
I
n
0
.,2
-c
n
m
41.
That triparti te negotiated arrangements (government,
employers, trade unions) be central to the allocation of points
to different skills under the labour market skills factor. They
should largely determine where the skill shortages are and which
skills should receive the highest points. These negotiated
arrangements should supersede the existing OSS and ENS subcategories.
42.
That the contribu,t ion of people with entrepreneurial skills
to Australia's economic development be recognised by awarding a
significant number of points for entrepreneurship, including a
component on capital transfer insofar as it relates to a business
venture.
43.
That for business immigrants the grant of Australian
citizenship be contingent on provision of proof of a business
venture having been set up.
IDC:
alternative points assessment developed.
Not supported. Priority to be given to expanded negotiated

arrangements and broad-based labour market enhancement via
recognising role of other skilled entry.
Govt: Not accepted:
a separate ENS category to be maintained.
Not supported. Business migration endorsed as separate

targeted economic category.
Govt: Not accepted:

maintained.
IDC:
a separate Business Migration category to be
Not supported. Concerns regarding business migrants addressed

in a more positive manner in Rec. 44.
IDC:
Supported. Support was expressed for monitoring of accted1ted

~~ents, hnwe\er, number of reservations held regarding the
monitoring of inves t ment funds of business immigrants.
Govt: Accepted and in place.

45.
That a greater emphasis be placed on youth in t he immigration
program, not only because of the demographic argument, but also
because of the dynam1sm and innovation wh i ch youthful immigrants
can bring to this country. The actual points allocat i on for age
should be determ1ned on the basis of which age groups have the
most Impact in reducing the mediam age of the 1mmigrant intake
while maxim1sing skill levels.
n
)>
tD
-2
IDC:
Govt: Not accepted

44.
That an effective monitoring and auditing system be
establ1shed to cover both the investment of funds by business
immigrants and the activities of accredited business immigration
agents.
[81]
[8]
IDC:
Qualified support.
Await findings of the NPC.
Govt: Accepted in parl: points for age reflect maximum potential

contribution to the economy over work inJ l i fH.
..-.1
I
2I
n
0
.,-2
c
m
2
n
m
[82]
[9]
RECOMI-1ENDAT IONS
CONCLUSIONS
46.
That applicants be able to score on the language factor
either by having a knowledge of Eng I ish, by being bl I lngual or
multi lingual or by being proficient In a language of national
Importance, for example the language of a major trading partner.
IDC:
Qua I If I ed support. F undamenta I Importance of Eng I ish and of

Eng I Ish and other language for economic and cultural reasons
recognised. Identified as an Issue I lkely to be controversial.
Govt: Accepted In part: language of national significance not

adopted In points test.
n
)>
-m2
D:l
-;-t
2-
47.
That the kinship factor give more points to sib I ings, adu lt
children, nieces and nephews, parents and grandparents of
Australian citizens, and fewer points to more distant relatives.
No points on this factor should be allocated to applicants whose
kin In Australia are not Austral I an citizens.
48.
That an adjustment be made to the score of applicants on the
basis of ski I Is and other relevant attributes of spouses for
example, by the allocation of bonus points.
IDC:
n
)>
Qualified support. Kinship points should not be allowed to

override or danlnate economic factors. Awalt findings of the
NPC.
-2D:l
Govt: Accepted in part: narrower band of kin and different scale of

points adopted; sponsorship not I lmlted to Citizens.
IDC:
Not supported.
-:-t
Govt: Not accepted
n
0
2
-n
c-
m
2
49.
That the highest welghtlngs go to the ski Its and entrepreneurship factors. People covered by negotiated arrangements
should be given maximum points on the ski I Is factor and this
shou Id ensure theIr se Iact Ion provIded they score adequate Iy on
the age and languag~ factors. The welghtlngs for entrepreneurship/
special talents shoyld be sufficiently high to facl lltate the
entry of business Immigrants and the exceptionally talented, once
their el lglblllty has been established. The age factor should
receive the next highest weighting so as to deliver a low median
age In the Open category. Language capacity should have the next
highest weighting, close In Importance to the age factor. The
order of priority of the remaining factors, which are of lesser
Importance than above, should be kinship, other links with
Australia, and attributes of spouses. The latter three factors
must be weighted to support the broad objectives of the Open
category.
Health
50.
That Infectious diseases continue to be taken as a basis for
excluding Immigrants but that appl !cants with dlsabl titles be
assessed In the light of economic and faml ly circumstances and
taking account of the public health costs Involved In their care and
treatment.
IDC :
Await NPC findings.

w
Govt: Not accepted:
alternative points system adopted.
co
n
0
2
.,
-c
m
2
n
m
IDC:
Supported and consistent with current practice.
Govt: Accepted
[83]
[10]
u
RECOI1~1E:NDAT
IONS
Settlement Assessment
51.
That the settlement assessment be dropped for all immigration
categones.
n
)>
-2
ttl
m
I
n
0
-c
"'TI
n
m
l1lC:
Qualifted support. DILGEA supports abolistung Settlement

Assessment for the 'Open' and Family categories of migration
but reta1ning it for Refugee and Spec1al Humanitarian
migrants pending examination of alternatives.
Govt: Accepted in part:

be narrowed.
Eligibility for Sponsorship
52.
That entitlement to sponsor immigrants, including through the
kinship factor in the Open category, be limited to Australian
citizens, except in instances where those being sponsored are
spouses, dependent children or refugee/humanitarian cases.
-2
CONCLUSIONS
Nexus between Temporary and Permanent Stay

53.
That the criteria whereby people temporarily in Australia
are assessed for permanent residence be the same as for immigration
applicants overseas. Accordingly, the practice of granting
resident status to people temporarily in Australia (change of
status) should be discontinued, but applications within all
entry categories should be accepted from people while in Australia.
54.
That people applying in Australia under the Open category
not be permitted to extend their visas pending decisions and not
have access to review rights. Sponsors would be entitled to seek
review. Anyone who is illegally in Australia by unauthorised stay
beyond the expiry of a visa, or by illegal entry, should forfeit
the right to apply for immigration while here or be automatically
rejected if they have already appl1ed.
55.
That existing entry provisions for special needs relationships
be expanded to cover cases of emotional inter-dependency between an
overseas applicant and an Austrahan citizen, currently dealt with
by the grant of resident status provisions. This should 1nclude
widowed in-laws of Australian citizens (but only those people formerly
married to brothers, sisters or adult children of then Australian
sponsors) who have young children, and are without family or other means
of emotional support in the home country.
IDC:
n
)>
ttl
Supported. Defacto spouses in Australia may also need to be

exceptions as with Rec 19.
Govt: Not acceptod:

sponsors.
IDC:
application of settlement assessment to
2
m
citizenship not to be a requirement for
-1
I
-2
Not supported. GORS policy should continue to be aligned as

closely as possible with migrant entry criteria. This would
meet spirit of Rec 53, which is to streamline procedures and
ensure consistency.
n
w
Govt: Not accepted: GORS to continue as a limited provision in

defined circumstances.
IDC:
Not supported.
implemented.
Govt: Not accepted:
IDC:
If Rec 53 not implemented, Rec 54 cannot be
,-
m
2
consequential on response to R53.
Not supported. If GORS retained

(see Rec 53), implementation of Rec 55 will not be required.
Govt: Not accepted:
\.0
0
2
consequential on response to R53.
n
m
[84]
[11]
RECOMMENDAT IOI~S
56.
J)
fi)
n
)>
-2t:D
m
-;-t
-2
I
To deal with temporary residents equitably, that

spouses and children accompanying parents be permitted to
work;
where the head of the faml ly and/or spouses or children are
working and thus paying taxes, the members of the Immediate
family accompanying parents to AustralIa should have the
same access to educat ion as other Austral ian taxpayers.
CONCLUSIONS
IDC:
Govt: (f) Accepted and In place

(Ill Not accepted
57.
That early steps be taken to protect the integrity of the
total Immigration program where it might be compromised by the
unintended consequences of other government programs, for example
by certain schemes for temporary entrants such as students.
IDC:
n
)>
tD
-2
m
-4
I
Australia and New Zealand : Immigration Pol icles

58.
That In the longer term, steps be taken to align Austral ian
and New Zealand immigration pol lcles.
n
m
Supported and consistent with current pol icy.
Govt: Accepted
IDC:
"TI
p~llcy.
(Ill Not supported. Austral fan residents pay tax for their
working I lves. Tempor ary residents by nature of their entry
pay tax only for duration of stay. Recommendation
Inconsistent with trend towards ful I recovery of education
costs of overseas students and proposed graduate tax.
0
2
(I) Supported and consistent with current
Not supported. Better response for Government would be to

effect regular dialogue with NZ on our Immigration pol lcles.
While general concept has some val ldlty and is consistent
with spirit of CER, the need for and consequences of
endorsing principle of 'alignment' should be carefully
considered.
Govt: Not accepted In this form.

A Professional Immigration Service
59.
That the Department recruit a greater mix of highly qualified
staff, Including demographers, economists, psychologists,
sociologists, statisticians, lawyers, political scientists and
business graduates.
IDC:
Supported and consistent with current practice. There Is a

recognised and Increasing need for higher volume and higher
quality analysis and advice In these fields by the Minister
and Department. Financial constraints and recruitment
parameters laid down by the Public Service Commission place
constraints on Implementation.
Govt: Accepted
60.
That proficiency In a language or languages other than English
should be emphasised In the appointment of officers to the Department.
IDC:
Supported and consistent with current practice.
Govt: Accepted
2
I
n
0
2
-"TIc
m
2
n
m
[85]
[12]
("")
RECOMM~NDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
61.
That there be continued and enhanced commi tment at all levels
of the Department including Reg i onal Offices to the EEO Program, and to
close monitoring of i ts progress. Indicative numerical targets should be
set for representation of women and people of non-English speaking
background in key positions in the Department, while ensuring that the
merit ~ystem continues to prevail.
!DC:
62.
That further efforts be made to increase the representation
of women in the immi gration service overseas.
Supported and consi s tent with current practice.
Govt: Accepted
IDC:
Supported and cons i stent with current objectives.
("")
Govt: Accepted
)>
)>
aJ
-2
tD
2
m
63.
That the object i ve of a new approach to the servi ce should
be a more professional, more integrated immigration service, from
th~ enquiry counters at Regional Offi ces, to the operations of our
posts overseas, and the provision of policy advice to government.
2I
64.
That there be established an independent Minister's Committee
on Immigration wi th a substantive role in pol i cy formulation.
-;-t
IDC:
-1
I
IDC:
,-
m
2
("")
Not supported. No further restructur i ng of NPC be undertaken

at this stage, but that dependent on outcome of Rec 65 some
changes may be necessary on expiry of current terms of
membership in December 1989.
Govt: Not accepted at this stage.

65.
That the pr!Jposed Minister's Committee on Immi gration be able
to draw on a well-resourced research capability through a new and
i ndependent body to be called the Bureau of Immigrat i on Research.
Consult i ng and Planning
66.
That every two year s there should be an Immigration Outlook
Conference, supporte d by professi onal pa per s , wi th the f i rti t
conference to be held 1n late 1909.
!DC:
Supported.
Govt: Accepted
IOC :
Supported. Immi grat i on Outlook Conferences s hould be

Jnstituted and co-ord i nated by the Bureau of Immi gration
Researt:h.
Govt: Accepted
Keeping the Commun i ty Informed
67.
That an i ntegrated coherent approach to publi c educat i on
be undertaken to dispel community mi sconcept i on s .
Govt: Accepted
("")
.2
Supported and cons i stent with current training strategy.
!DC:
Supported.
Govt: Accepted
-2
I
"""
t-'
("")
0
2
,-
m
2
("")
[86]
[13]
RECOM\lENDAT IONS
Distribution of Staff Overseas
68.
That the distribution of staff overseas be related to the
number of immigr ation decisions I ikely to be made at each overseas
post after applicants have been pre-selected.
n
)>
m
2
m
-;-4
2
(")
0
2
-c
'TI
2
0
m
COI~CLUSIONS
IDC:
Supported. Should be recognised that other factors such as

the number of visas issued, complexity of local working
conditions etc wi I I also need to be taken into account when
making decisions on distribution of DILGEA staff overseas.
Govt: Accepted in part:

also relevant.
69.
That there be a comprehensive review of recruitment, training
and supervision of locally engaged staff, but that where possible and
appropriate, Austral lans living and travel I lng abroad be recruited
as immigration aides at Australian overseas missions.
IDC:
other factors such as level of visa issue
n
)>
Supported in principle. Current recruitment and training

strategies and increasing use of Australians abroad do address
issues underlying this recommendation. A comprehensive review
not essential.
-2
CD
Govt: Accepted In part although review not required.

70.
That In any information materials prepared tor clients, the
Department ensure that due emphasis Is placed on the position and
rights of women in Australia and on AustralIa's commitment to
giving women the same access and opportunity as men to the
Immigration process. Where possible, women immigration officers
should be available to counsel women applicants.
Immigration Fees
71.
(I) That fees continue to be applied to Immigration services and
<2> be extended to fund services such as the provision of information
kits to faci I !tate self-selection. (3) Fees should be waived in cases
of extreme hardship.
IDC:
-;-4
2
Supported. Recommendation, in so far as it refers to DILGEA's

information program, be Implemented. See Rec 62 re way women
immigration officers deployed.
ol>oN
Govt: Accepted
n
0
IDC:
-c
'TI
( ll Supported dnd consistent with current pol icy.

(2) Supported and implemented in 1988/89 Budget.
(3) Not supported.
Govt: (I) Accepted

<2> Accepted
(3) Not accepted. Fees are not charged for Refugee/Special
Humanitarian Program applicants.
1-3
1-3
~
()
::r:
:3::
J:rl
1-3
tJ
m
2
n
m
[87]
[14]
(")
)>
tD
-z
m
~
-z
I
n
0
.,z
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Recognition of Qualifications
72.
That as a priority the National Board of Employment,
Education and Training take responsibi I ity for developing a
strategy to integrate accreditation procedures within the
relevant Federal body responsible for labour market planning.
IDC:
Model Migration Bill

73.
That a draft Bi II, drawing on the Committee's model, be
introduced into Parliament as soon as possible to replace the
existing Migration Act.
Need for action supported. Await outcome of the NPC Working

Party on Recognition of Overseas Qualifications.
Govt: Accept urgency of action on recognition of qualifications;

alternative approach proposed.
IDC:
Support for aspects of legislative change, although review and

enforcement no-t supported in form proposed by CAAIP.
)>
-z
tD
Govt: Accept, in part legislative change to be made by amendment to

existing legislation to provide for:
two tier de-terminative merits review, internal then external
<AAT>;
detai I ing of policy i n regulations;
Secretary as decision-maker in most cases;
overriding power of Minis-ter in cer-tain decisionsj
mandatory deportation orders, where permission -to remain in
Australia is refused.
m
~
-z
,;:.
n
0
-c
.,z
-c
z
(")
m
2
CABINET-IN-CON-F IDENCE
44
[88]
[15]
ATTACHMENT E
IMMIGRATION OBJECTIVES
RECOMMENDATION
1.
I recommend that Cabinet note the discussion of immigration
objectives in this Attachment.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
Perceptions of the objectives of immigration have changed
since an active national immigration program was initiated in the
immediate post-war period and the long term population growth
target of 2% per annum, 1% per annum from immigration, was
introduced. At that time the objective was embodied by the
catchphrase "populate or perish" - a need to defend Australia,
occupy land and address labour shortages. Tariff protected
industries and large infrastructure projects required a pool of
unskilled and semi-skilled labour. Current objectives for
immigration are to contribute to Australia's economic, social,
humanitarian and demographic goals in the context of a mature
economy needing skilled labour.
3.
The nature of this contribution needs to be clearly
articulated. CAAIP rightly highlighted the absence of a clear
public rationale for immigration and linked this with low community
support for the program. An effective rationale depends on clearer
identification of our broader goals and the contribution expected
of immigration.
Otherwise the program will continue to be
perceived _as ad hoc in nature, further losing public support.
4.
The Government's economic goals are full employment, low
inflation and rising living standards. The present imperatives are
structural adjustment through reductions in tariff assistance,
greater workforce flexibility through multiskilling, education and
training, and the creation of conditions for growth through
technical innovation and a focus on industries which achieve
greater value-added outputs.
5.
CAAIP Research indicated that immigration has a positive
impact on the economy but is best seen as a long term instrument
rather than one with sufficient flexibility for short term
adjustment. It appears not to be a major overall contributor to
economic development in terms of GDP per head, there being other
policy instruments better placed to achieve this. Clearly it
causes GDP-growth but without targeted selection it can in fact
reduce GDP per head. The impact of immigration is sensitive to the
composition of the intake in terms of enhanced occupational skills
and, to a lesser extent, its lower average age than that of the
45
[89]
[16]
ATTACHMENT E
Australian population. In the short to medium term, immigration

has an important role in addressing skills shortages particularly
where education and training can take several years to produce
local expertise. Temporary residents make a particularly useful
contribution in this area.
6.
Immigration is also a major contributor to the growth of the
labour force which is a major reason for its contribution to GDP
growth. The average annual contribution of net migration to growth
in the working-age population in the post-war period has been about
45%. In some skilled occupations immigration has often been an
important source of supply. The labour market impact of
immigration however is not simply a question of settler intake.
Other movement components are numerically and economically
significant, and increasingly so. The temporary entr~ of workers,
students and working holiday makers and visa-free entry of New
Zealanders under the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement are examples.
On the other hand, permanent and long-term departure~ of Australian
residents is predominantly skilled which has a negative impact on
the economy if not replaced.
7.
In part these movements can be seen in terms of an
increasingly international labour market for skilled, technical and
managerial workers.The volume of permanent and long-term movement
from New Zealand is particularly sensitive to relative economic
conditions in both countries. In effect this is a common labour
market and is seen as a natural complement to the Closer Economic
Relations (CER) Agreement.
8.
Immigration can continue to be tailored to Australia's
economic requirements. It can contribute to national economic
development by responding to labour market needs, providing
entrepreneurial skills and capital, and supplying young, skilled,
educated and readily employable migrants. The objective of
sharpening the economic focus of our entry programs will contribute
to the achievement of the Government's economic goals.
9.
In social terms, through the ratification of United Nations
treaties, Australia supports the concept of the family as "the
natural and fundamental group unit" of society entitled to the
widest possible protection and assistance by society and the State.
Family is not defined in any of these instruments and varies with
culture and circumstance. However, the practice of permitting
husband, wife and dependent children to co-reside is emerging as
the "nascent rule of international law". Entry policy for an
46
[90]
[17]
ATTACHMENT E
advanced democratic nation must accommodate this rule. Immigration

should continue to reflect a commitment to re-uniting immediate
families.
10. In humanitarian terms, Australia is a signatory to
international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its
1967 Protocol. As a signatory and as a responsible member of the
international community, Australia has a proud record of finding
solutions for refugees around the world and has accepted
significant numbers of refugees for resettlement: 470,000 in the
last 40 years; 175,000 since 1975. Australia's efforts have
contributed to our high international standing and strengthened our
participation in regional and international affairs.
11. In demographic terms Australia currently has no explicit
long-term population policy. The closest recent expression of a
policy was the emphasis un immigration as a means of retarding the
ageing of the population. However the most that can be said is
that the second-order effects of immigration influence the trends
that arise from declining birth rates. Immigration can help to
smooth the peaks and troughs inherent in the age structure of our
population. There are increasingly large numbers of dependent aged
and a smaller proportion of persons of working age. Immigration
can boost the numbers of workforce age, but is not a panacea in
this regard.
12. Immigration does produce significant population outcomes,
whether intended or unintended. Its impact is on population
growth, structure and diversification (see Figures 1 to 3).
Post-war immigration is estimated to have contributed directly and
indirectly through births over 60% of total growth as natural
increase has declined. Last year net migration contributed about
half of the population increase of 1.6%.
13. CP~IP's proposed gross immigration intake of 150,000 annually
over the next three years, if sustained, would result in a
population of 26 million by 2031, representing a long-term average
annual growth rate of 1.08%. The contribution of net migration
gain to population growth between 1988/89 and 2030/31 would be
about 73%. As natural increase declines and the population ages,
the role of immigration as a component of population growth and as
an influence on Australia's society is likely to assume greater
significance.
CABIN ET-1 N-CON FIDEN CE
47
[91]
[18]
ATTACHMENT E
14. CAAIP was sanguine about population demands on the

infrastructure of capital cities, yet about 60% of immigrants
settle in Sydney and Melbourne. CAAIP also largely dismissed
environmental arguments against immigration. Given present
attitudes to immigration levels and environmental issues the
linkages between population and environment need to be explored in
more depth than was done by CAAIP. Public support for population
policies, including immigration, will be influenced by perceptions
of progress on management of environmental issues.
[92]
[19]
48
ATTACHMENT E
Figure 1
ANNUAL RATES OF POPULATION CHANGE IN AUSTRALIA 1947-1987

3.5
2.5
1.5
1947
1007
1957
1977
Net M;gralion
Nall.Xal lnaease
Sourca: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 'Demography'
varous years.
1987
[93]
[20]
49
ATTACHMENT E
Figure 2
COMPONENTS OF POPULATION GROWTH,AUSTRALIA 1946-1987
('000)
300 -
I!!R
Net migration
Natural increase
250 -
200 -
150 -
100 -
50 -
-50 1946
1951
1956
1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
YEARENDED31DECEMBER
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics

Australian Demographic Statistics
Australian demographic Trends
and
[94]
[21]
50
ATTACHMENT
J.....
Figure 3
Actual and projected birthplace composition, Australia 1986 and

2021(a)
Birthplace
1986
2021
Zero net
migration gain
125 000 net

140 000 net
migration gain(a)
migration gain(b)
'000
'000
'000
000
UK & Ireland
(Rep)
1185.1
Other Europe 1199.0
Asia
410.2
Middle East
150.5
Oceania
251.9
Other
201.3
Australia
1.2576.0
7.4
7.5
2.6
0.9
1.6
1.3
78.7
647.1
626.9
303.0
104.1
191.4
148.3
16566.6
3.5
3.4
1.6
0.6
1.0
0.8
89.1
1432.5
1279.9
1747.7
327.0
604.6
605.7
18341.3
5.9
5.3
7.2
1.3
2.5
2.5
75.4
1399.6
1118.7
2074.2
460.7
547.9
799.0
18558.8
5.6
4.7
8.3
1.8
2.2
3.2
74.1
100.0
18587.4
100.0
24338.7
100.0
25028.9
100.
Total
15973.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------(a)
The migration assumption used in this series holds the birthplace

composition of net migration gain constant and the same as the average
for net permanent movement over the period 1977-78 to 1986-87. That is,
UK and Ireland (Rep) 21.5 per cent, other Europe 16.5 per cent, Asia 35.7
per cent, Middle East 5.5 per cent, Oceania 9. 7 per cent and other
countries 11.2 per cent.
(b)
The migration assumption used in these projections holds the birthplace

composition of net migration gain constant and the same as the average
for net permanent movement over the period 1985-86 to 1986-87. That is,
UK and Ireland (Rep) 18.4 per cent, Other Europe 12.7 per cent, Asia 39.3
per cent, Middle East 7.8 per cent, Oceania 7.5 per cent and other
countries 14.2 per cent.
Sources:
Calculated and taken from Australian Bureau of Statistics,

Estimated Resident Population bv Count ry of Birth and Sex:
Australia June 1986, and Department of Immigration, Local
Government and Ethnic Affairs, unpublished projections.
[95]
[22]
51
ATTACHMENT F
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR IMMIGRATION POLICIES

RECOMMENDATION:
1.
I recommend that Cabinet endorse the broad approach enunciated
in CAAIP's 10 principles for immigration policy but with the minor
amendments outlined in paragraph 5 of this Attachment.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
Since 1978 successive Government's have supported nine
principles of immigration policy. CAAIP's recommendation number 9
states that 'the following be adopted as the guiding principles for
immigration policies and that they be publicised extensively in the
community:
(a) The Australian Government alone will determine who will be
admitted to Australia consistent with laws enacted by the Federal
Parliament to regulate immigration.
(b) Only an Australian citizen or holder of a valid resident visa
has a right to enter Australia.
(c) Immigration policies will be determined by Australia's
national interests as defined by major government policies and
strategies for Australia's social, economic and cultural
development. Policies will seek a harmony of outcomes between
economic a-nd social interests.
(d) Immigration will respond to the needs of individuals by
upholding close family reunion and humanitarian assistance.
(e) In selecting between one individual and another, immigration
policy will be non-discriminatory on grounds of race, colour,
descent or national or ethnic origin, sex and religion.
(f) Applicants may be considered for immigration as family units
but will not be considered as community groups.
(g) Immigrants will be required to respect the institutions and
principles which are basic to Australian society, including
parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and equality before the
law, freedom of the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of the
press, freedom of religion, equality of women, universal education.
Reciprocally, Australia will be committed to facilitating the equal
participation of immigrants in society.
(h) Citizenship will be given due recognition as a symbol of
commitment to Australia and its future, and be associated with a
requirement to respect Australia's institutions and principles.
(i) Australia will encourage the entry of visitors to Australia
for the purpose of fostering trade and commerce, tourism, cultural
and scientific activities and international understanding.
[96]
[23]
52
:)
ATTACHMENT F
(j) Immigration policies will be determined and implemented in

such a way as to maintain and protect the health, safety and good
order of Australian society.'
3.
The CAAIP principles reflect social and economic developments
of the past decade, express similar sentiments to the current nine
principles and cover the key areas of sovereignty;
non-discrimination; social and economic benefit for Australia;
family; expectations of migrants in respect of citizenship and
Australia's institutions and principles basic to Australian
society; integration and equality of participation; and the
maintenance of health, safety and good order of Australian society.
4.
The principles have generated very little debate and no
comment apart from the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of
Australia (FECCA) wishing them incorporated in to Migration
legislation and State officials voicing concern that
multiculturalism is not reflected adequately. However, the CAAIP
principles in fact refer to cultural development, respect iJr
institutions and principles basic to Australian society and equal
participation of immigrants in society . The principles present a
mature expression of multiculturalism as it is relevant to guiding
immigration policies.
5.
The CAAIP principles are supported subject to the following
minor changes in wording and emphasis
(a) Principle at 2(f), after 'immigration as' insert 'individuals
and'.
(b) Principle at 2 (g) , after 'Immigrants' delete 'will be
required' and insert 'are expected'.
(There are legal doubts that
this can be made a requirement.
(c) Principle at 2(h), delete 'a requirement' and insert ' a
declaration'.
(There are legal doubts that this can be made a
requirement.)
6.
Finance has no objection to the general principles outlined in
the Attachment. In supporting the principle contained in 'g' for
Australia to facilitate the equal participation of immigrants in
society, Finance notes that no commitment to additional resourcing
of programs is implied.
[97]
[24]
53
ATTACHMENT F
DEPARTMENT oF THE ARTS, SPORT, THE ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM AND

TERRITORIES
7.
This Department agrees generally with the new policies.
However, the commitment to national interest and continuing
evaluation of the effects of immigration should be made more
explicit. The draft Statement to Parliament would be improved by a
reference to environmental considerations (in paragraph 18 dealing
Principle (c) at paragraph 2, page 50 should refer to
'environmental' as well as 'social, economic and cultural'.
8.
The linkages between population and environment can only be
addressed adequately in a longer term framework and by an adequate
[98]
[25]
54
ATTACHMENT G

RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
(a) the Family Migration ceiling be set at 69,000 for 1989/90;
(b) the Economic Migration ceiling be set at 56,000 for 1989/90;
(c) the Humanitarian Migration ceiling be set at 14,000 including
a 1,500 contingency reserve for 1989/90;
(d) the Special Migration Category be allocated an indicative
(e) the Self-Supporting Retiree sub category be abolished;
(f) the total program for 1989/90 as derived from the component
streams be 140,000;
(g) Grant of Resident Status (GORS) be retained and where
anal~gous with Migrant Entry categories identical criteria for
(h) each GORS category be attributed to the appropriate Migrant
(i) an additional 5 ASL ($0.2m) in 1988/89, 20 ASL ($1.1m) in
1989/90 and 20 ASL thereafter (for each of 1990/91 and 1991/92 at
$1.0m per annum) be allocated to GORS processing to ensure that
integrity in selection is maintained.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
CAAIP recommended a gross intake of 150,000 for the triennium
1988/89 to 1990/91, combining visa issue overseas and grant of
resident status in Australia, and that the composition be derived
from this figure, under three migration categories: Family
Migration, Refugee and Humanitarian Migration and Open Economic
Migration. The first would be demand-driven with numbers expected
to reach 40,000. The second would be set at 15,000, a 1,000
increase on the 1988/89 program ceiling. The third would be the
remainder - 95,000. CAAIP is criticised as lacking a convincing
rationale for its program. There have been calls for each
component to be argued separately and the program to be justified
through a process of accretion.
3.
An NPC Expert Working Party was appointed following CAAIP to
advise on selection systems. It has proposed a program structure
based on three streams of migration: Humanitarian and the two major
streams of Family and Skill, as illustrated in Figure 1. The
Working Party made no recommendation on the size of these streams
but supported the principle that the total program level should be
derived from the individual components. It put forward the
[99]
[26]
55
ATTACHMENT G
proposal that each component be capped and the size reflect the
objectives underlying each stream. Within the Family and Economic
streams, close family and targeted economic migration should be
demand-driven with extended family and independent migration as
residuals, as shown in Figure 2. This approach provides a
mechanism for controlling overall program numbers and program
balance .
4.
In recent years Humanitarian Migration has remained relatively
constant while Family Migration, Economic Migration and the total
program have increased, as shown in Figure 3. The 1988/89 program
of 140,000 is made up of 12,000 humanitarian migrants (plus 2,000
contingency reserve), 46,000 close family migrants, 32,000 skilled
and business migrants, 46,000 Independent and Concessional migrants
and 2,000 Special Eligibility migrants (including those granted
resident status). Major changes from these figures for 1989/90
would be difficult to justify as the social and economic forces
underlying immigration are unlikely to change significantly.
However, as people in Australia granted resident status on refugee
or humanitarian grounds are now to be counted under the immigration
program, there is to be in 1989/90 a 500 place increase in the
refugee and humanitarian program to 12,500 and a commensurate
decrease in the contingency reserve to 1,500. It should be noted
that to this point the contingency reserve has never been used.
j
5.
If a balance of family c~iterion is agreed, demand-driven
close family migration is likely to reach about 41,000 in 1989/90
(including GORS cases). A total Family Migration program of about
69,000 would enable an extended family program of 28,000 .
6.
Demand-driven Economic Migration is likely to reach about
23,500 in 1989/90. A total Economic Migration program of about
56,000 would maintain about the same balance expected to be
achieved from the 1988/89 program. Consequently, the residual
would be 32,500 - about 9,000 OSS migrants and 23,500 Independents,
comparable with 1988/89 program figures.
7.
A small Special Migration category is necessary to facilitate
the entry of family of New Zealand citizens who are themselves not
New Zealand citizens, former Australian citizens and residents and
small numbers of persons other than family granted resident status
in Australia for compassionate reasons. Existing provisions for
self-supporting retirees will be abolished and no new applications
will be accepted from the date of announcement in Parliament. It
will be replaced with temporary entry provisions to avoid demands
[100]
[27]
56
).
ATTACHMENT G
on the social welfare system. Wi th this change, numbers will

reduce to about 1,000 in 1989/90.
8.
Aggregating the three migration streams yields a total program
in 1989/90 of 140,000.
9.
CAAIP recommendations 53, 54 and 55 propose in essence that
GORS be abolished, that application under Migrant Entry provisions
be accepted both on-shore in Austral i a and overseas, that criteria
used to assess persons for permanent residence be the same for
applicants on-shore or overseas, and that there be limitations
placed on access to review rights and visa extensions pending
decisions on permanent residence where the applicant is in
Australia. Fundamental to the spirit of these recommendations was
the principle that there should be no advantage or disadvantage to
applicants flowing from where they apply .
10. The recommendations are not supported on two grounds. First,
given the provision of universal access to the Federal Court, and
the opportunities to strengthen claims through a~tual residence, an
inevitable advantage accrues from applying in Australia.
11 . Secondly, implementation of the recommendations would involve
a broadening of eligibility for on-shore processing . The effect
would be greatly to increase the number of persons eligible to
apply in Australia for resident status, by opening up, in
particular, the Independent and Concessional category or its
equivalent. This is currently effectively restricted to Working
Holiday Makers (WHMs), who may be assessed under the points system
but who do not attract any concessional points. The change
proposed by CAAIP would very likely result in a flood of
applications for Migrant Entry lodged in Australia.
12. GORS should be maintained with some provisos. GORS is closely
aligned with corresponding Migrant Entry policies but remains the
more restrictive of the two overall, most notably in relation to
selection in Australia within the "economic" categories. GORS is
however more liberal than Migrant Entry policies in relation to
compassionate grounds for residence. Where analogous categories
exist, the same criteria will be used to assess applicants, and
criteria will be applied identically. Thus, for example, if a
balance of family criterion is applied to parents selected
overseas, it will also apply under GORS (see Attachment K).
13. Given the nature of GORS, it is proposed that in future the
numbers of approvals for each GORS category be attributed to the
appropriate Migrant Entry category for Migration Program planning
[101]
[28]
57
ATTACHMENT G
purposes. For example, GORS approvals for spouse, child or aged

parent will be attributed to the Family Migrat i on component of the
Program and so on.
14. Concern has been expressed about the scope offered by the
existence of GORS for queue jumping and circumvention of pol i cy.
15. The perceived problem of queue jumping should be addressed i n
terms of the circumvention of both procedures and policy.
Procedures are circumvented in that GORS is quicker that Migrant
Entry and offers the applicant the advantage of awaiting an outcome
in Australia. In the majority of cases, however, there is no
circumvention of policy, although this may occur indirectly as
persons who would be unlikely candidates for Migrant Entry can,
through their residence in Australia, establ i sh alternative claims
to residence.
16. Of most concern is that abuses are known to occur, notably
through contrived marriages and de facto relationships. Given the
current level of resources, most cases cannot be readily pursued
where doubt exists as to their genuin~ness . Numbers are not
thought to be large but significant enough to warrant a more
resources-intensive approach to ensure that the integrity of the
Migration Program is maintained.
17. It is also proposed that the S6A(1)(b) of the Migration Act,
which provides for grant of resident status on the grounds of
marriage, be amended to require applicants to hold valid temporary
entry permits. The same requirement already applies to all other
classes of GORS applicants excepting those seeking territorial
asylum. Such an amendment would provide a further consideration
where a marriage appeared to be contrived or had been entered i nto
after a protracted illegal stay in Australia .
18. Although PM&C believes the immigration intake should have the
highest feasible standard in economic terms, the department
supports the dual stream approach - option (c) - to reconciling the
tension between purely skilled immigration and extended family
immigration. The separation of the extended family and independent
immigration categories, while still selecting primarily on the
basis of skills, will maintain the skill level of the immigration
program while recognising (and containing) strong community demands
for continued extended family migration.
[102]
[29]
58
ATTACHMENT G
19. This option has clear presentational advantages particularly

in terms of Australians from mi grant backgrounds.
20. The extent of the skill trade-off will depend on the relative
numbers in the overall family and economic categories. The
economic focus of the immigration program could be further enhanced
by altering the balance between the two. This could be done
annually in setting the migration program for the year.
21. The absence of an English ability criterion for extended
family applicants may be seen as inconsistent with the economic
objectives of the program. The inclusion of a strict English
proficiency criterion could however be seen as a country of origin
bias.
22. If points for language ability are to be awarded in the
extended f~~ily stream any perceived country of origin bias could
be avoided by awarding higher points to people with English plus
another language. Alternatively a more flexible test of English
language ability could be used.
23. Finance considers that a lower target than the proposed
program size of 140,000 should be set in view of the immediate
demand pressures flowing from the immigration program.
24. Finance is concerned that, in effect, the independent category
is a residual, and considers that the greater economic focus given
to the migration program as a result of CD 11196 on the 1988-89
program should be at least maintained.
25. Consistent with CM 11631 and CM 12033, Finance considers that
the additional resources requested to reduce abuses under the GORS
arrangements should be considered in the 1989-90 portfolio targets
context which was agreed to as a means to resolve minor new policy
issues. Provision of supplementation at this time without offsets
would result in this portfolio receiving preferential treatment.
26. DEET agrees that each component size of migration program
should be agreed separately with some consideration given to the
overall economic impact of the total migrant intake level. The
economic component needs to be set each year in the light of
changing needs in the economy . DEET however does not support the
expected drop in the economic category for 1989-90 of 4,000 and
considers that the size of the economic category should be at least
as large as the family migration category.
59
[103]
[30]
ATTACHMENT G

27 . The whole approach to population policies implicitly assumes
that the only variable is the net immigration intake. In spite of
conventional wisdom there may well be areas where the Australian
birthrate could be influenced by eliminating disincentives to have
children. This aspect of population policy has not been given
adequate attention in the Australian debate.
28. In addition, there is little in the Submission about the
longer-term availability of potential migrants overseas. It seems
29. To achieve a higher skill profile of migrants the Department
favours a shift in the balance between the Extended Family and
Independent categories towards the latter. As indicated at
Attachment I of the Submission (paragraph 13 page 71) the skill
profile in the Independent category is noticeably higher than in
the Extended Family category. The balance between the two
categories should reflect the high priority of skills in the
selection process.
30. DIR believes that the approach to future immigration policy
[104]
[31]
u
NPC SELECTION SYSTEM WORKING PARTY
SELECTION SYSTEM STRUCTURE
l>
2-
tD
MIGRATION
-2
I
n
0
,z
-c
m
2
n
m
*Social
MIGRATION
* Compassionate
Broad based
Targeted
labour force
Economic needs/
'/
responsibilities
CATEGORY
POINTS
SELECTION
SELECTION
CATEGORY
-r
SHP
Broader
family
Immediate family
--
,-2
CATEGORY
SELECTION
I \
SELECTION
* Labour skills
* Special talents
2
I
* Business skills
* International
Re~gees
0'1
benefits
-....,
* Compassionate
m
-1
enhancement
\..
-zOJ
HUMANITARIAN
l>
MIGRATION
m
~
SKILL
FAMILY
h:J;J>
I
Independent
Migration
Tripartite
Supervised
Negotiated
Employer
Arran~err. ~ nts
Nominations
..... t--3
l.Qt-,3
Special
:~z
talents
r::;t:>
li()
t--3
G)
n
m
61
ATTACHMENT G
Figure 2
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

DUAL SELECTION. DIFFERENTIAL POINTS TEST
Immediate
family
TNA
Employer
Nominations
Demand driven
Independent
Residual
'::: .
::::-..
* Three broad streams only. Special eligibility not shown.

The proposed 1989/90 program would be allocated as follows:
14 OOO(a)
HUMANITARIAN MIGRATION
FAMILY MIGRATION
- Immediate family (b)
- Extended family
SKILL MIGRATION
- BMP
- TNA and other employer nominations
- Special talents
-Independent
: oss
69 000
41000
28 000
56 000
12 000
11 000
500
23 500
9 000
SPECIAL ELIGIBILITY
TOTAL PROGRAM (c)
1000
140 000
(a) Includes 1 500 contingency reserve

(b) Assumes balance of family criterion adopted
(c) Change of Status allocated
[105]
[32]
[106]
[33]
62
ATTACHMENT G
Figure 3
Settler arrivals : Humanitarian,Social and

economic Components : 1980/81-1987/88
& Program Figures for 1988/89-1989/90<al
. .
'. ::. J
HLNANfiARAN
1let..1 Z.:a l.:t r.d c 1 t! :ens
i11JC
. , SOCIAL
:
nc; uded.
63
[107]
[34]
ATTACHMENT H
ECONOMIC MIGRATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
(a) an Economic Migration program level be set each year in the
light of changing needs of the economy i
(b
Economic Migration be divided into two streams: an
with a points test;
(c) the targeted migration stream comprise four categories:
(i) Tripartite Negotiated Arrangements
(ii) Individual Employer Nominations
(iii)Business Migration
(iv) Special Skills Migration.
(d) a Council be established with responsibility for overseas
be jointly developed by DEET and DILGEA; and
(e) the present OccupationaL Shares system (OSS) be included as
.part of the Independent Migration category in the broad-based
labour force enhancement stream.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
CAAIP, in arguing for a sharper economic focus to immigration,
recommended an Open category in which all economic migrants would
enter under a points test. The Open cat~go~y was set at 95,000 out
of a total program of 150,000.
3.
Following receipt of the CAAIP Report, the question of a
selection system for economic migration was referred to an Expert
Working Group of the National Population Council (NPC). The advice
of the Group forms the basis of this attachment.
4.
While training and retraining of Australians to meet skill
shortages should remain a top priority, in a dynamic, expanding but
small economy there will always be some skill needs which cannot be
satisfied from domestic sources. The prime objective of economic
migration is to complement training and retraining programs in
meeting Australia's labour market needs. Consequently, the
components of the economic migration program should be set each
year in the light of changing requirements.
5.
The structure of the economic migration stream should reflect
the dual role of economic migration by separately addressing the
specific skill and business needs of industry on the one hand and
the demand for a diverse range of broad-based skills on the other.
64
[108]
[35]
ATTACHMENT H
6.
Targeted migration through employer-driven and business-driven
selection is the most effective way of addressing specific needs.
Application of a points test, which acts to offset the specific
qualities targeted with other factors, is inappropriate. Category
selection is also preferred to minimise processing times. Four
targeted migration categories are proposed.
7.
Industries' skill needs should be met as a first priority
through negotiated arrangements including Government, Business and
Unions. These arrangements allow employers to recruit an agreed
level and range of skills overseas with fast processing and
elimination of labour market testing. They are integrated with
developments in industry training programs and award restructuring.
8.
Since the introduction of negotiated arrangements in 1984, the
number of places offered has risen from about 100 to about 700 in
1987/88, reflecting the growing number of industries covered.
Presently, arrangements are in place for the following industries:
Merchant Banking, Metal Industry, Printing Industry, Chartered
Accountants and Furniture Industry (WA only). Negotiations are
presently underway with the: Aerospace Industry, Housing Industry
and the Computer/Information Technology Industry.
9.
While it is not possible to predict the number of places for
1989/90 because of the very nature of the arrangements, it is
expected, given the negotiations in hand, that numbers will
continue to grow.
10. The National Population Council Working Group supports the
establishment of a mechanism to initiate, co-ordinate and oversight
overseas skills recruitment. An appropriate mechanism would be
through a small council chaired by the Minister for Immigration,
Local Government and Ethnic Affairs with two representatives each
from Government, employer groups and unions. The council would be
serviced within existing structures by the Skilled Migration area
of DILGEA in consultation with the Skills Analysis area of DEET.
The council would set the agenda for negotiated arrangements and
set priorities. It would also take responsibility for determining
those occupations on the shortage list proposed for inclusion in
the points test and for monitoring individual employer nominations
and their impact on training. Membership and terms of reference
could be jointly developed by DEET and DILGEA.
11. Individual nominations would continue to be necessary because
not all industries, such as those with a high degree of
65
[109]
[36]
ATTACHMENT H
fragmentation, can be covered in the foreseeable future by

negotiated arrangements.
12. Skill shortages as a result of unforeseen needs, new
technology and structural change have led to a rise in total ENS
migrants (including negotiated arrangements) from 3,531 in 1983/84
to 8,200 in 1987/88. The program figure for 1988/89 is 10,000. A
major change from this figure in 1989/90 is unlikely given the
expected continued high demand for skilled workers as restructuring
proceeds. However, with greater emphasis on negotiated
arrangements it is likely that significantly fewer people will
enter in the Individual Employer Nominations category.
13. The selection and processing of migrants with business skills
will continue to be undertaken with the co-operation of, and in
partnership with, the private sector. The number of business
migrants has risen sharply from 3,535 in 1986/87 to 7,222 in
1987/88. The pr0gram figure for 1988/89 is 12,000. A continuation
of this rate of increase is unlikely during 1989/90 because of a
number of factors - the effect of the Asian immigra~ion debate,
increased competition from other countries in attracting business
migrants and our own efforts to improve the quality of the program
rather than numbers.
14. The selection of small numbers of people with special or
unique talents should continue to be based on co-operative
arrangements with national and State sporting and cultural bodies.
A continuation of recent trends would see about 500 people
migrating in this category in 1989/90.
15.
In summary, indicative planning levels for the targeted
economic migration categories in 1989/90 are:
TOTAL EMPLOYER NOMINATIONS
11,000
Tripartite Negotiated Arrangements
Individual Employer Nominations
12,000
BUSINESS MIGRATION
500
SPECIAL SKILLS
23,500
TOTAL EMPLOYER/BUSINESS-DRIVEN
16. Applicants in the broad-based labour force enhancement stream
should be subjected to a points test which can maximise outcomes
across the range of qualities sought. The aim would be to select
young, skilled, adaptable people from a diversity of employment
backgrounds in an Independent Migration category. Included in this
category would be migrants who presently enter in the OSS. These
migrants who have occupations on a DEET specified skills shortage
66
[110]
[37]
ATTACHMENT H
list, are more logically selected in the same stream as the

supply-oriented Independent category rather than the
employer/business-driven targeted categories. For 1989/90, they
should be separately identified to facilitate comparison with
Independent and Concessionals in 1988/89.
17. As Independent Migration is proposed to be a residual within
the Economic Migration stream, numbers will depend on:
(a) the total economic migration program to be set; and
(b) the level of demand in the targeted categories.
18. There has been a sharp rise in the number of Independent
migrants since the category in its present form was introduced in
1986/87. Numbers arriving have jumped from 1,639 then to 12,066 in
1987/88. Visas issued in 1988/89 are expected to reach about
23,000. With a total economic program set at 56,000 in 1989/90,
the number of Independent migrants to be issued visas should reach
about 23,500. In addition, there would be about 9,000 OSS
migrants.
19. Finance supports the proposals contained in this Attachment to~
maintain an uncapped targeted economic migration stream. It
considers, however, that the extended family group rather than
independents should be the residual for the overall program and
that the needs of the economy, rather than the need to balance the
Family and Skill Migration groups, should determine the level of
economic migration.
20. Finance assumes that the proposed Council for overseas skills
recruitment will be established and operated within existing
resources.
21. DEET supports the continued use of negotiated arrangements,
where practical, as a method of fast processing but on condition of
improved training arrangements. Tripartite Negotiated Arrangements
are however not applicable for all industries. The establishment
of tripartite arrangements may delay the overall process because of
the requirement to consult more widely.
22. DEET questions the likely contribution of a council to
oversight overseas skills recruitment, which would duplicate
functions already carried out by DEET and DILGEA and may delay
processing of applications. The proposed shortage list, currently
CABINET-IN-CONF DENCE
67
:)
[111]
[38]
ATTACHMENT H
designed by DEET, already relies heavily on tripartite

negotiations.
23. DIR supports the general concept of economic immigration
intake being div i ded into the two categori es of targeted and
general economic skill needs. It supports the emphasis on
tripartite negotiated arrangements as the priority means of meeting
targeted industry skill requirements and the linking of such
tripartite negotiations with developments in industry training
programs and award restructuring. This would be an appropriate
mechanism for ensuring that immigration is not unnecessarily
maintained over the longer term and that career paths for the
existing Australian workforce are not curtailed . While supporting
the thrust of the proposed economic immigration categories, more
work needs to be done in addressing how these arrangements will
work in practice.
24 . If a Council with responsibility for overseas skills
recruitment and for the development of industry negotiated
arrangements is established, industrial relations implications of
industry negotiated arrangements would need to be taken into
account.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARTS, SPORT, THE ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM AND
TERRITORIES
further streamlined .
68
[112]
[39]
ATTACHMENT H

Employers should be allowed access to the Employer Nomination
[113]
[40]
ATTACHMENT I
69
POINTS TEST
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
(a) a points test be differentially applied to Extended Family and
Independent Migration as separate streams to address the competing
social and economic objectives of the categories;
(b) the points test comprise the following factors:
(i) Employability, with skill, age and language as sub-factors
(ii)
Relationship
(iii)
Citizenship
(iv)
Settlement
( v)
Location
as detailed in Figure 1;
(c) fa~tor (i) to be used in assessing Independent migrants and
factors (i) (minus language), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) be used in
(d) a floating pass mark be used to manage the points tested
component of the program; and
(e) note that a more sophisticated and complex selection system
ASL
$m
1988-89
3.6
33
1989-90
58
7.4
1990-91
44
5.4
4.6
32
This requirement will be reduced by $3.2m per annum from 1990-91 if
my recommendations on balance of family are accepted.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
CAAIP recommended a points test with the following factors in
order of weighting: skill, entrepreneurship, age, language,
kinship, links with Australia and attributes of spouse. However,
CAAIP did not detail the specific parameters or weightings to be
used. This task was referred to an Expert Working Party from my
advisory body, the National Population Council.
3.
The Council Working Party has developed a points test which
can be applied in three different ways to address the range of
social and economic objectives underlying the Extended Family and
Independent categories.
4.
The system has been developed to be:
(a) flexible - to allow Governments to vary the mix and profile
according to changing needs; and
1991-92
70
[114]
[41]
ATTACHMENT I
(b) objective - to enable self-assessment and consistent

application.
5.
The proposed system is structured around five factors:
employability, with skill, age and language as sub-factors,
relationship, citizenship, settlement and location and is detailed
at Figure 1.
6.
Employability- Skill. This has been given the highest
weighting to maximise the skill profile of the intake to maximise,
in turn, the labour market success of migrants and therefore their
contribution to the economy. The strong links between intake level
and labour market success and economic growth are illustrated in
Figures 2 and 3. The Working Party has recommended that skill be
measured by the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations
(ASCO) criteria of formal education, on-the-job training and
previous experience, with weighting for likely recognition of
qualifications in Australia. The system has been designed to
accommodate changes which may result from the review of overseas
qualifications recognition being undertaken by another NPC Expert
Working Party but will also operate effectively under present
arrangements.
7.
Employability- Age. Points for age should be awarded on the
basis of the potential period of contribution to the labour market.
Optimum age is about 20 years. Average age at which costs begin to
outweigh benefits is about 45 years, as shown in Figure 4.
8.
Employability- Language. Points should be awarded for
English language skill in recognition of its labour market
significance (Figure 5), its relevance to general settlement
prospects and the cost implications for language training. The
Working Party has recommended that points also be awarded for
bilingualism in languages other than English in recognition of
flexibility in language learning.
9.
Relationship. Points for relationship address the social
objective of family reunion. Parents who do not have the balance
of their children in Australia (see Attachment K) have been
included in Extended Family rather than in the demand-driven
Immediate Family because of their potential costs to society in the
long term. Estimates based on a 1988 survey (Centre for
Multicultural Studies, commissioned by DILGEA) and 1984 Social
Welfare Policy Secretariat data show that social security and
health costs of the existing Working Age Parents category could be
as high as $300 million annually by the year 2000 (1987 dollars).
71
[115]
[42]
ATTACHMENT I
10. Citizenship, Settlement, Location. The successful settlement

of the sponsor and the sponsor's commitment to Australia are
important factors in the settlement prospects of the prospective
migrant. Consequently, points should be awarded if the sponsor is
an Australian citizen, as an indication of commitment to Australia,
and if the sponsor has a sound employment record (less than one
month on unemployment benefits over the last two years). In
addition, in recognition of State/Territory Government concerns
over population distribution trends, extra points should be awarded
if the sponsor lives in an area consistent with State/Territory
Government settlement priorities. I will invite advice from my
State counterparts through our Ministerial Council on the
identification of designated settlement areas.
11. The three ways in which the system can be applied are as
follows:
(a) Single stream - Independent and Extended Family streams
compete against a common set of criteria. Both stredms would be
.scored against the employability factor, with additional points for
relationship.
(b) Dual selection/common points test - Independent and Extended
Family streams would be separate but assessed against common
criteria. Different pass marks would if necessary, apply to each
stream to ensure that the visa outcome, is consistent with the
quota for each stream. The points test factors could be as applied
for Option (a).
(c) Dual selection/differentially applied points test - Separate
Independent and Extended Family streams would be subjected to a
differential application of the points test to reflect alternative
objectives of each stream. Independent migrants would be assessed
against the employability factor and Extended Family against
employability without language, relationship, citizenship,
settlement and location. The exclusion of language in the latter
is consistent with the increased emphasis on social objectives
under this option.
In simple economic terms, English ability is a
key factor in employability (see Figure 5) and a major determinant
of successful settlement . On the other hand, there is widespread
concern within ethnic communities that a language factor is
discriminatory and represents a significant barrier to family
reunion.
These concerns should be given precedence over the
economic arguments for including language.
Total costs of this
approach are difficult to measure and particularly those associated
72
[116]
[43]
ATTACHMENT I
with any adverse effects on unemployment, however, estimates for

adult language training can be made.
Based on an Extended Family
intake of about 28,000, my Department estimates that an additional
2,200 (+11%) migrants with poor or no English (with English as a
factor) or 5,200 (+26%, if English is not included) will be
admitted.
12. The AMEP is already under-servicing the current intake,
especially the highly skilled. Without additional funding, an
extra 2,200 clients would seriously impede current efforts to
correct this gap through a planned re-ordering of priorities. An
additional 5,200 clients would result in a dramatic deterioration
in service with long waiting lists (already 3-6 months in places)
and the majority of clients achieving only 'survival English'.
Cost recovery measures are planned but are likely to deter
participation if set above 5% of total tuition costs. To service
the proposed extra clients would cost $7.84m with language as a
factor and $18.54m without a language component. If these
resources are not available, clients are likely to enter the
workforce less readily, thereby creating greater costs to the
welfare budget .
13. The first option places greater emphasis on economic
considerations. With present application rates it is likely that
all principal applicants would have recognised skills. The skill
profile would be noticeably higher than present levels, as shown in
Figure 6. However, of all extended family who applied in 1987/88,
only 10% would have been successful under this system. About 70%
of the stream would be Independent migrants and 30% Extended
Family.
The skill level outcome of the second option is likely to
be much the same as for the third option, well below that of the
first option and marginally above expected 1988/89 levels based on
the projected Extended Family intake of about 28,000 as shown in
Figure 6. The higher the level of Extended Family migration above
this figure, the lower will be the overall intake skill level.
With a Family program of 69,000 and an Economic program of 56,000
the number of independent migrants will be about 4,500 fewer than
the number of extended Family migrants under Option 3.
Under
Option 2 the ratio of Independents to Extended Family is
predetermined.
14. The percentage of the total intake with family in Australia is
estimated to be about 70% under both dual selection options
73
[117]
[44]
ATTACHMENT I
compared with about 64% under the single stream option and present
policy.
15. By birthplace, the most noticeable differences between Option
(a) and Options (b) and (c) are the comparatively fewer migrants
from the United Kingdom and Ireland under the latter and
comparatively more from the Philippines, as shown in Figure 7.
16. While economic benefits are maximised under Option (a), it is
at the expense of extended family reunion. If the Government
decides that there should be social as well as economic objectives
to the Extended Family and Independent streams, then Option (c)
would be the most appropriate.
17. To manage program numbers, I propose to introduce a floating
pass mark which would be reviewed every 4 months. A more frequent
review would impose administrative difficulties. Applicants who
are only a few points short of the pass mark applying at the time
of assessment would be pooled for a maximum period of 12 months,
and their applications would be reviewed at each change of the pass
mark. Other applicants failing to reach the pass mark would be
rejected immediately.
18. The proposed new selection system is more sophisticated and
complex than that now in operation. Additional information to
cover more assessing factors is required from applicants and
sponsors. Separate scoring items are to be used for the kinship
category as opposed to Independent applicants. Different
pass-marks will need to be floated at regular intervals for each
group. Control over applicants entering into and out of a 'pool'
is required. The estimates at Figure 8 are for additional funds to
those proposed for the eighteen posts agreed to for the Migration
Program System approved in CD 11196. Data will have to be fed to
Australia quickly and reliably for program analysis and decision
making. The proposals in the CAAIP Submission require a much more
sophisticated Program Management System at the eighteen posts and
in Australia than that envisaged in CD 11196. For the overseas
component the ADP system needs to be redesigned, new specifications
drawn up and some changes will have to be made to parts of the
application that are already programmed. For the Australian
component, given the dual stream system proposed and the increase
in the number of factors, a completely new design will need to be
developed and a completely new ADP application will need to be
programmed. Additional staffing will cover the design,
programming, training and installation of this ADP system.
74
[118]
[45]
ATTACHMENT I
19. The increased complexity of the proposed ADP system has forced
a reassessment of the hardware strategy. The additional funds at
Figure 8 will provide a more suitable hardware platform in several
large volume posts, including those in the United Kingdom.
Experience with the existing visa issuing system and the additional
complexity of the system proposed requires an increase in the
ongoing support and maintenance. In particular, the programming
maintenance work, the maintenance of the system for data
transmission and for day-to-day liaison with the posts. The
additional funds at Figure 8 will cover ongoing support staff. The
costings also include the development of the centralised Program
Management System. The recommended costings also cover new
application and sponsorship forms, additional overseas and domestic
staff and increased general administrative costs.
20. Distribution of forms to the Department's officers,
particularly overseas, is a problem area. The difficulty lies in
ensuring supply to a large number of posts with different and
constantly changing needs, while also maintaining centralised
content, quality and cost control. This distribution function is
one that lends itself to contracting out to a commercial enterprise
with an established international network. Costings are not
reflected in Figure 8. These will be taken up in the Budget
context.
21. Finance accepts the points test detailed in Figure 1 of the
attachment and the application to migration processing of the ASCO
system for the classification of occupations.
22. Finance has concerns, however, with the additional resources
that are being sought to administer the new points test; the
proposed establishment of a dual selection/differentially applied
points test for the Independent and Extended Family streams; and
the absence of language testing for extended family applicants.
23. Finance favours the 'single stream' option which would deliver
an increased economic focus to the program by the assessment of
applicants against a common set of criteria. It is also concerned
that the establishment of a separate extended family stream will
lead to future pressures for expansion which could only be
accommodated through a reduction in the independent stream if
overall program size is not to be increased.
75
[119]
[46]
ATTACHMENT I
24 . Finance does not accept that in a situation of excess demand

for extended family migration, language ability should not be used
as a rationing device, especially as there are significant
resultant costs for language training and significantly reduced
employability of migrants i n not doing so. If, however, Ministers
decide that language testing is not appropriate, Finance considers
that the increase in post-arrival service costs should be met from
increased revenue, including the option of charging a premium on
applications from persons with no or limited English language
skills.
25. Whichever option for the application of the points system is
favoured by Ministers, Finance considers that any resultant
resource requirements should be settled bilaterally by the Minister
and the Minister for Finance, against the requirement of CM 11631
for the identification of offsetting portfolio savings.
26. DFAT notes the revised procedures require additional overseas
staff resources both Australia based, and locally engaged.
Although satisfied the financial implications to the DFAT portfolio
are correctly stated, DFAT notes that any expansion of the overseas
Australia based establishment would need to be considered against
the background of CD 7289 of 18 March 1986 on the subject of
rationalisation of overseas staffing.
27. In the absence of a detailed DILGEA proposal on the likely
global location of the 56 additional staff, DFAT must reserve any
assurance that the additional staff can be physically accommodated
in existing premises, pending consultation with the overseas posts
potentially affected by these revised procedures.
28. DEET supports the inclusion of the Occupational Share System
in the broad based labour force enhancement stream.
29. The Department supports the proposed points system in the
economic category with its emphasis on skills. It prefers a single
stream under which independent and kinship applicants compete
directly. The alternative approaches weaken the skill level and
thus the economic focus of the economic category. DEET
acknowledges however that the economic focus is at the expense of
family reunion. As there are economic and social objectives to the
Extended Family and Independent streams, the dual
selection/differentially applied points test would be the more
appropriate for meeting these objectives and would increase the
CABINET-IN-CONF DE CE
CABINET-IN -CONFIDE CE
76
[120]
[47]
ATTACHMENT I
ski-lls content of the kinship factor. The skill content of these

two categories is also dependent upon their overall size. The
larger kinship category would have the effect of reducing the
overall skill level. DEET has difficulties with the practical
application of allocating separate points for designated growth
areas. The measurement of these areas is difficult and DEET does
not consider it to be a relevant factor for migration selection.
30. The Department favours option (a) (paragraph 11) where the
Extended Family and Independent categories compete against a common
set of criteria on the points system, with additional points for
kinship. This option would lead to a higher skill profile of
migrants than the option proposed in the Draft Submission.
that greater ~.nphasis should be given to the employability and
(a) greater weight should be given to skills in short supply in
(b) in view of the very high correlation between unemployment
(c) under the proposal, the proportion of the total intake with
present policy to about 70 per cent (Attachment I, paragraph 13).
program.
CAB I ET-IN -CONFIDENCE
[121]
[48]
ATTACH1'1ENT I
77
--->
-=---
ASCO occupations requmng:

Trade cert/degree (recognised), with sound continuous relevant
experience, on DEET shortage list
Trade cart/degree (recognised), with sound continuous relevant
experience
Trade cart/degree (recognised), without experience
Diploma (recognised) , with sound and continuous relevant experience
Diploma (recognised), without experience
Trade cart/degree/diploma (recognised overseas and requ iring only minor
upgrading, feasible in Australia), with sound, continuous relevant experience
Trade cart/degree/diploma (recognised overseas and requiring only minor
upgrading, feasible in Australia ), without experience
Other post secondary school quais or equivalent experience
Secondary school completion
Four years secondary schooling
Less than four years secondary schooling
18 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 years plus
LANGUAGE SKILLS
Proficient in English
Reasonably proficient English but minor training required
Bilingual in languages other than English; or only limited English ability
EX1ensive English training required
Parents < 65 years men, <60 women

Brothers, . sisters, non-dependent children
Nephews and nieces
Figu re 1
75
70
60
45
40
35
30
30
20
10
0
25
20
15
10
5
15
10
5
15
10
5
CITIZENSHIP FACTOR
If sponsor:
Australian citizen for 5 years or more
Australian citizen for less than 5 years
If sponsor:
Has had sound and continuous employment or equivalent over the last
two years (no unemployment benefits for more than one month In total)
10
LOCATION FACTOR
If sponsor:
Has lived in a State/Territory designated area for the last two years
[122]
[49]
ATTACHMENT I
78
Figure 2
Unemployment rates of migrants

by post-school qualifications on arrival
(Source: ABS Characteristics of Migrants
DEGREE
TRADE
CERTIDIP
Surve~~
March 1987)
NO QUAL
Data taken from the ASS 1987 Characteristics of Migrants

Survey and relate to those migrants who :
have arr i ved since 1980;
were aged 18 years or more on arrival; and
obtained the qualifications graphed before mi grating to
Australia.
[123]
[50]
79
ATTACHMENT I
Figure 3
Gain in GOP per capita

by skill level of intake
(Assumlng net intake of 125,000 pa from 1987 to 2030)
tSource: Economic consultant to CAAIP)
~~
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
I~
VVV'4
LAADJ
VVV:U
YV'f'4
-5%
=AUST
+5%
+15%
Skill level of intake reiat ive to that of tiu.stral1an iabour force
[124]
[51]
80
ATTACHMENT I
Figure 4
Net transfers during an average

Australian lifetime, 1986
$1987 f A)
50004 t~00
3000
:ooo
1000
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-1000
-2000
-'00r'l
:f.
-+ooo j
-5000 4
=~~~6
~
-8000
-9t~r~IZ~
-----
-10000._---------------------------------------------li- o:~ - -I j-;-,_

15~S+
0- 35- ~ ~ - JS- : 0..,,
4 ,:jg
4 39 J4 ~9 ~4
l '? .:~ 29
~
Hge Group (~earsJ

ta, Taxes minus outla~s on health.educ,soclal securit~ &welfare Fer cap1ta
Sou~ce: Soc1al Welfare Polic~ Secretar1at 'The 1mpact of population changes
en soc1al e (pendltur! ' ~ ABS ' Weeki~ earnings of emplo~ees. Hustralia '
[125]
[52]
81
ATTACHMENT I
Figure 5
Unemployment rates by English language ability

(Source: 1986 Census)
NOT AT ALL
NOT WELL
HELL
VERY WELL
ONLY
SPEAKS ENGLISH
Data taken from the 1986 Census and:

relate to all persons in the labour force as at 30 June
1986;
are based on self-enumeration and hence self-assessment
of language ability;
give unemployment rates expressed as a percentage of
the respective total English language group in the
labour force; and
do not take into account period of residence in
Australia.
[126]
[53]
82
ATTACHHENT I
Figure 6
Professional, Technical & Skilled Trades

Sattler Arrivals 1982/83-1988/89 (Projected)
Estimated Outcome 1989/90 under different
Selection Options
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
82183 83184 84185 85186 86187 87188 88189 89190

F i r.ar1c 1a.! Year
1.
Actual settler arrival data for the period 1982/83 to

1987/88.
2.
Column for 1988/89 represents expected program outcome.

For non-po i nts tested categor i es the skill level i s the
same as i n 1987/88. Outcomes for the Independent and
Concessional category are based on an expected program
outcome of 22,000 Independent mi grants and 23,500
Concess i onal migrants.
The skill level for th i s
category is based on pipel i ne data.
3.
Column for 1989/90 represents expected outcomes under

single and dual selection systems.
For non-points
tested categories the sk i ll level is the same as for
1987/88 but numbers are reduced by 5,000 because of the
balance of family criterion.
Under the single stream
option, there are 36,500 Independents and 15,000
Extended Family.
Under the dual selection opt i on,
there are 23,500 Independents and 28,000 Extended
Family.
[127]
[54]
83
ATTACHMENT I
Figure 7
Z of principal applicants by Birthplace

Independent & Concessional Migrants : Settler arrivals
1987/88 & Outcomes with different Selection Options
'"/
40
35
30
12 34 5 1 234 5 1 23 45
ur. :?.
EIRE
OTHEF
EUROPE
1'1 I[i[1LE
EAST
12 34 5 12 34 5 1 23 45
SOUTH
ASIA
12 345
12 34
HONG KONG PHILIP_ OTHER EAST

MALAYSIA PIHES
& SOUTH
OTHEF
EAST ASit1
Column 1 represents Settler Arrivals 1987/88.

Column 2 represents the present points test outcome
assuming a pass mark of 80 points or 75 points
including 25 points for employability.
Column 3 represents the Single Stream option (Option 1)
outcome.
Column 4 represents the Dual Selection fixed outcome
option {Option 2) with language included.
Column 5 represents the Dual Selection differential
points test option (Option 3) with language
excluded for Extended Family.
[128]
[55]
84
ATrACHMENT I
Figure 8
Flmds Required for New Selection System
1989/90
1990/91
1991/92
(15)
12341800
(21)
10581400
(18)
3521800
(6)
5291200
1171600
(2)
1171600
(2)
1171600
(2)
8221000
8221000
8221000
(12 . 0)
(12 .0)
(12 .0)
3361100
3361100
3361100
1988/89
New fonns & leaflets
I:X:mestic ASL (fonns)
(ASL)
IX:Irestic ASL (procedures)
(ASL)
IX:Irestic ASL (Migration Act
Drafting)
(ASL)
A-Based ASL overseas (DILGEA)
3921000
2941000
(5)
8821000
(9)
(ASL)
A-l:ased staff overseas (DFAT)

(ASL)
* LES overseas
D:mestic ASL (rranage new selectirn
system) (ASL)
General Adrn.ini.strative Expenses
2291100
Canputer Tenninals ( 38)
Ufgl:ade of IRIS II & MFMS
112291400
3031700
3031700
(4)
(7.5)
(7.5)
3.56
(33.0)
7.45
(57.7)
5.43
(44.2)
4.62
(32.2)
Fit-out (dcmastic only)

$n
(ASL)
761000
118761200
(18)
1761000
(ASL)
Totals
(2.7)
(2.7)
(2 . 7)
7501000
7501000
7501000
1171600
1171600
1171600
(2)
(2)
(2)
119431400 119191700 118241900
(These figures are not on

approved forward est.llnates)
Notes
* Includes provision for ASL equivalent of 30.0 for a full

year.
A-Based salary costs J:::ased on $68 1 500 per person.

costs J:::ased on $25 1 000 per person.
LES salary
General Administrative expenses l:ased on:A-Based of $26 1000 DILGEA 1 $30 1000 DFAT 1 $70 1000 DAS
LES of $2 1000 DILGEA 1 $5000 DFAT
I:X:mestic of $7 1900 DILGEA
COmputer costs of $2 1000 per tenminal.
Fit-out costs for domestic ASL only-20sq.rn. per ASL at $400 per
sq. rn. J:::ased on ASL for 1990-91.
[129]
[56]
85
ATTACHMENT J
RECOGNITION OF OVERSEAS QUALIFICATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
(a) note the useful contribution of the work of the Nat i onal
(b) agree that this model, together with other related inquiries
into the issue should be referred to a working party of the
Structural Adjustment Committee (SAC) for further consideration by
early 1989; and
(c) agree that this worki ng party should examine overseas skills
in the context of skill accreditation and qualification recognition
more generally in Australia.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
The CAAIP Report (pp.53-55) was critical of existing processes
for the recognition of migrants' qualifications, seeing them as
"often complex, confusing and costly in terms of time". There was
too much emphasis on formal qualifications rather than skills and
the system was highly fragmented and discriminatory in outcomes .
Although the major problems associated with the process had been
addressed by the Fry Committee (1982) and the Jupp Committee
(1986), little progress had been made in reforming the system.
CAAIP offered no alternative processes .
3.
Current estimates are that restrictive practices by unions and
professions in membership, registration and licensing processes add
an estimated 7,500-10,000 migrants each year to those unable to
utilise their skills to Australia's benefit.
4.
Improved processes are seen as essential if economic migration
is to realise its full potential impact on labour force quality and
if migrants are to be allowed to participate equitably in
Australian society. They could also assist with the wider problem
of labour market flexibility reflected in such practices as lack of
portability of qualifications between States and tertiary
educational institutions.
5.
The need for urgent action in improving overseas
qualifications recognition processes was further emphasised by
State Ministers and ethnic communities during post-CAAIP
consultations. Advice has also been sought by Cabinet's Structural
Adjustment Committee on measures the Commonwealth could take to
liberalise recognition processes (CD 10761 of 14 March 1988).
[130]
[57]
86
ATTACHMENT J
6.
Arising from thi_s , _ an NPC Expert__Working Party chaired by
Professor Stephen Castles of Wollongong University has, at my
predecessor's request, developed an alternative approach to the
recognition of overseas qualifications and skills. The Group has
developed an 'ideal' model for reform which was tested at a
workshop of invited experts drawn from business, unions,
professions and trades, and Government including those engaged in
similar exercises at State level held at Wollongong 6-7 October
1988. The Group has identified the problem as one of inefficiency
in wasted skills and labour market rigidities; and of inequity in
that outcomes are seen as discriminatory and administration has
inconsistencies.
7.
The Council's model is set out in diagrammatic form (see
Figure 1). It is designed to meet the following principles:
(a) deregulation;
(b) overseas fast preliminary assessment of skills incorporating
formal education, on-the-job training and previous experience;
(c) the development of a data base or dictionary to facilitate
assessments. All applicants would be given information and
counselling on employment and accreditation prospects;
(d) an integral role for training. Training, retraining, bridging
courses and English language courses would facilitate the
accreditation of skills. This would be consistent with multiple
entry points and improved career paths under award restructuring
and the development of industry training programs;
(e) competency based assessment on-shore and a shift in emphasis
away from recognition of equivalent qualifications;
(f) integrated national, Commonwealth and State structures to
rationalise responsibilities (set out at Figure 2).
8.
The model assumes the need for the development of
(a) a comprehensive universal data base containing a register of
overseas formal qualifications and training programs and an index
of industry/occupation requirements for Australia along the lines
of ASCO.
(b) the complementary development of competency testing and
training programs.
(c) institutional arrangements, namely
(i) at the national level, a tripartite co-ordinating overseeing
body
(ii) at the Commonwealth level responsibilities for immigrant
selection, labour market planning and industrial relations issues
[131]
[58]
87
ATTACHMENT
(iii)at the State level, a one-stop shop co-ordinating all

activities in relation to the recognition and utilisation of
immigrants' skills.
9.
Arising from this, such a model would require gradual
implementation over a period of 2-3 years as the modules become
available and in line with current Commonwealth and State
initiatives on award restructuring and training.
10. The development of the model will result in some additional
costs, savings and possibly revenue. These are difficult to
estimate at this early stage but a preliminary estimate of net
costs is of the order of $10m.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES AND HEALTH
11. The Department particularly notes and supports the thrust of
the recommendations relating to the principles of the proposed
model for the recognition of overseas qualifications.
DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINJT
12. The Department supports the proposed approach, which is in
keeping with a proposal currentl1 the subject of correspondence
between Mr Dawkins and the Prime Minister. We note, however, the
importance of SAC consideration of the paper in early 1989,
particularly given the need for concrete proposals on overseas
qualifications recognition to be ready for inclusion in the
National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia within the next six
months.
13. DIR is particularly concerned that the NPC model for
recognition of skills obtained overseas is inappropriate to
Australian needs. It represents a move away from national
recognition of skills and qualifications and ignores the existence
of national arrangements for such recognition in specific trade
areas and in the transport and communications sectors. The actual
procedures proposed by the NPC to facilitate recognition of
qualifications lack the support of key trade unions and carry the
implication that applicants would need to migrate to Australia
before knowing whether they could work in their chosen field of
employment.
14. Moreover, the proposal to place responsibility for the
arrangements under the Minister for Employment, Education and
Training would not necessarily ensure industrial relations
concerns, particularly in some trades, were adequately taken into
[132]
[59]
88
ATTACHMENT
account. The National Labour Consultative Council had already

signalled its concern about this suggestion.
15. The Minister for Industrial Relations has approved a review of
trade recognition arrangements and procedures under the Tradesmen's
Rights Regulation Act and any modification to the existing
mechanism should be deferred until the review is completed.
16. Finance strongly supports the need to reform the recognition
of overseas qualifications. It considers that there is an
unacceptable social and economic cost in the present arrangements
whereby migrants are unable to use their skills because of
restrictive practices and bureaucratic complexity. Finance
considers that an Inter-departmental Committee should be
established to report to the Structural Adjustment Committee on all
the various issues relating to overseas skills recognition
including the proposed model discussed in the Submission.
DEPARTMENT OF .;MPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING
17. DEET supports the recommendations relating to qualifications
recognition. The current systems of assessment require reform and
the NPC model will be a useful contribution to the analysis.
18. The model and other related inquiries will be most
appropriately dealt with by referral to the Structural Adjustment
Committee.
[133]
[60]
89
ATTACHMENT J
Figure 1
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
OVERSEAS
BY DICTIONARY
QUALIFIED FOR IMMEDIATE
AUSTRALIA
ACCREDITATION
I
YES
NO
TESTING
theoretical
clinical
practical
supervised
practice
probationary
work experience
SUCCESSFUL
UNSUCCESSFUL
ACCREDITATION
SUCCESS
registration
certification
" " " " - - -' RE-ASSESSMENT
TRAINING /RE1RA.INING
employer training
TAFE/ Uni/ CAE
license
employment
UNSUCCESSFUL
TRAINING
RESULTING
IN
ACCREDITATION
[134]
[61]
90
ATTACHMENT J
Figure 2
MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT , EDUCATION AND TRAINING
NATIONAL TRIPARTITE BODY

AND SECRETARIAT
(NATIONAL COORDINATION, RESEARCH,
POLICY DEVELOPMENT)
IMMIGRATION:
STATE-BASED
MIGRATION SELECTION
POLICY
'ONE-STOP-SHOPS'
INCLUDING PRELIMINARY
-ACCREDITATION,
ASSESSMENTS OVERSEAS
TRAINING
I
I
I
SERVICES
I
I
TRAINING
( LABOUR MARKET
INFORMATION )
INDUSTRY
TRADE UNIONS
PROFESSIONS
CABINET-IN-CONFIDEN_
CE
[135]
[62]
91
ATTACHMENT K
FAMILY MIGRATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
(a) agree that parents be processed in the untested Family
Migration category only where the balance of their children are
resident in Australia(ie. that parents must have more children
lawfully and permanently resident in Australia than in any single
other country or at least an equal number lawfully and permanently
resident in Australia as overseas);
(b) agree that this requirement would count all children of the
social dependence;
(c) agree that policy on Assurances of Support be tightened such
that Assurances of Support extend to the payment of Unemployment
family criterion and are enforced for five years; and
(d) note that these changes will realise net savings of $6.3m in
ASL in 1988-89, rising to 16.8 ASL in 1991-92.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
Family Migration currently covers spouses, fiancees, dependent
children, parents and minor classes such as special need and aged
dependent relatives. Persons selected are subject only to health
and character checks. CAAIP proposed including grandparents in the
Family Migration Category and excluding parents under 55, who would
be processed in the Open Category. Ethnic interests welcome the
former, strenuously oppose the latter and argue additionally for
the inclusion at least of unmarried non-dependent children in the
untested Family Category.
3.
The treatment of relatives within the Family Category should
be assessed against basic parameters such as degree of dependency;
proximity of kinship with an Australian citizen/resident;
compassion; and impact on the wider community. Special attention
needs to be given in this regard to consequential budgetary impact.
4.
Grandparents are currently eligible for family entry where
their circumstances meet the criteria for "aged dependent relative"
and where their own children sponsor them as aged parents. Prior
to CAAIP there was no demand to enshrine them as a separate class.
The distance of the relationship, the potential numbers and the
likely demands on the social welfare budget discourage
liberalisation.
CABINET~IN-CONFIDENCE
[136]
[63]
92
ATTACHMENT K
5.
Parents comprised 9 . 3% of the total migration program in
1987/88. Most were aged over 55. There is a certain symmetry
between the inclusion of parents under 55 (or even under 65) in the
points tested extended family category, and the treatment of
non-dependent children under current policy. It would, however,
significantly lower the int~ke of parents in this age group given
the selection requirements proposed for the points test .
6.
An alternative option is to retain parents in the Family
Category, but on the basis of a balance of family requirement i . e.
more of the parent(s)' children are lawfully and permanently
resident in Australia than in any single other country, or at least
an equal number are lawfully and permanently resident in Australia
as overseas. The requirement would count all children of the
social dependence. The Department of Social Security's view is
that sponsor/parent relationships are less prone to breakdown where
more family members are in Australia. A simi~ar provision was in
place from 1979 but was dropped in 1982 in a package of measures
liberalising entry. It is estimated that this approach would
reduce the numbers qualifying by some 40%. It would result in net
savings of $6.3m 1989/90, rising to $25.3m in 1991/92 after
administrative offsets against reductions in social security,
health and education outlays. This option allows more younger
parents to enter than CAAIP's recommendation, but fewer older
parents.
7.
The Family Migration Category is a provision which recognises
both the bonds and the responsibilities of kinship. The sponsoring
child undertakes to care for the sponsored parent through an
Assurance of Support for 10 years, where the parent is of or within
10 years of retirement age. Under the terms of the Assurance, any
Special Benefit paid to the sponsored parent accrues as a debt
against the Assurer. Other forms of benefits and medical/hospital
costs are not recovered. The Assurance is not enforced after the
sponsored parent becomes a citizen, and some 7% fail to be honoured
prior to this time .
8.
Cabinet examined the operation of the Assurance of Support in
early August and agreed to administrative changes to tighten the
vetting of Assurers and debt recovery. Further changes of a policy
nature were deferred for consideration in the context of CAAIP.
9.
Almost half the number of parents entering are of working age
and are eligible for Unemployment Benefit (UB). Most of these are
[137]
[64]
93
ATTACHMENT
in the age group for which an Assurance of Support is required.

- k Extens i on.ci- Assurances to recover payrnents of UB would result in
net savings of some $1. 2m in 1989 / 90, rising to $7. 8m in 1991/92.
Extension of Assurances to all parents entering under the Family
Migration Category would ensure consistency of treatment and accord
with the entry philosophy applying. This would yield net savings
of $0 . 29m in 1989/90 and $0.97m thereafter. Enforcement of
Assurances for a period of 5 years, irrespective of citizenship, is
administratively feasible and would yield savings of $2.3m in
1992/93 and gradually increasing thereafter. In each case, savings
would be lower if balance of family applies. The
Attorney-General's Department advises that the five year provision
would require either an amendment to the Migration Act, or the
replacement of the Assurance with a Deed. The former is preferable
given debt recovery action on Assurances currently underw.3.y.
10. The 'Balance of Family' assessment will require addi~ional
information from applicants and sponsors, assessing and verifying
those details, and follow up interviews where required. The
case-load in 1988/89 is expected to be 6,550. The costs, which are
summarised below, cover salary, overtime and allowances for
additional overseas (including locally engaged staff (LES)) and
domestic staff plus additional general administrative costs and
are :
1988/89
126,725
( 1. 9)
'
A-Based overseas ( $)
(ASL)
A-Based staff overseas
62,250
(DFAT) ( $)
(0.5)
DFAT (ASL)
123,750
*LES overseas ( $)
154,889
Domestic ($)
( 3. 8)
(ASL)
General Administrative
851,520
expenses ( $)
Computer Terminals (10) ($)
Fitout costs (domestic
ASL)
1. 32
$M
( 6. 2)
(ASL)
89/90
253,450
( 3. 7)
90/91
253,450
(3.7)
91/92
253,450
(3.7)
103,430
(0.9)
247,500
309,777
( 7 . 6)
103,430
(0.9)
247,500
309,777
(7.6)
103,430
(0 . 9)
247,500
309,777
( 7. 6)
604,110
20,000
604,110
604,110
1. 52
1. 52
(12 . 2)
(12.2)
60,800
1. 60
(12.2)
[138]
[65]
94
ATTACHMENT K
Notes
*Includes provision for ASL equivalent of 4.95 for 1988/89 and 9.9
in a full year.
A-Based salary costs based on $68,500 per person. LES salary costs
based on $25,000 per person .
General Administrative expenses based on:
A-Based of $26,000 DILGEA, $30,000 DFAT, $70,000 DAS
LES of $2,000 DILGEA, $5000 DFAT
Domestic of $7,900 DILGEA
Computer costs of $2,000 per terminal.
11. It should be noted that the immediate family category under
this proposal is more restric:ive than in the existing program.
If the Minister's preferred option (c) is adopted, the imposition
of a 'balance of family' criterion on the entry of parents in the
immediate family category cot ld be seen as an acceptable trade-off.
However, if a more restrictive approach to extended family
migration, such as option (a), is adopted, the addition of a
balance of family criterion would be seen as excessively harsh .
The entry of parents often provides independent settlers with
valuable support, particularly for women in need of assistance
because of isolation, communication problems, marital breakdown or
domestic violence. This must be weighed against the savings in
social welfare costs that would result from the 'balance of family'
restriction.
12. Finance strongly supports the proposals contained in the Paper
relating to the strengthening of the assurances of support.
However, it favours the CAAIP recommendation of placing parents
under 55 in the open (economic) category, combined with the
application of a balance of family criterion to parents 55 and over
(the proposal in the Submission is to apply a balance of family
criterion to all parents and includes all parents in the Family
Migration category). Finance notes that the balance of family
proposal, taken together with the CAAIP recommendation would
deliver substantially increased savings under the Social Security
and Community Services and Health portfolios.
13. Finance considers that the resources requirements to
administer the proposals should be settled bilaterally with the
[139]
[66]
95
ATTACHMENT K
Minister for Finance, against the requirement in CM 11631 for the

identification of offsetting savings.
14. DFAT notes the revised procedures require additional overseas
staff resources both Australia based, and locally engaged.
Although satisfied the financial implications to the DFAT portfolio
are correctly stated, DFAT notes that any expansion of the overseas
Australia based establishment would need to be considered against
the background of CD 7289 of 18 March 1986 on the subject of
rationalisation of overseas staffing.
15. In the absence of a detailed DILGEA proposal on the likely
global location of the 56 additional staff, DFAT must reserve any
assurance that the additional staff can be physically accommodated
in existing premises, pending consultation with the overseas posts
potentially affected by these revised procedures.
jS,
DSS supports the application of the proposed 1 balance of
farnily 1 criterion to migration of parents and the proposed changes
to policy on Assurances of support. DSS notes that measures
proposed in the area of family migration may, in the longer term,
Cabinet 1 s decision that only those clearly able to honour an
assurance should be perrn~tted to sponsor under this category.
[140]
[67]
96
ATTACHMENT L
REFUGEE AND HUMANITARLAN ENTRY

RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.
(a) to maintain the Refugee/Special Humanitarian Entry Program
(b) to reject involvement by domestic community agencies in
(c) that the Government develop an emergency rescue program to
provide speedy acceptance of refugees and people st i ll in their own
country who are confronting immediate persecution or
life-threatening situations;
(d) to further consider a limited utilisation of the overseas
affiliations of church organisations which may be well placed
(e) to note that, however, there are a number of sensitivities
(f) to retain and enhance present Determination of Refugee Status
(DORS) procedures.
To this end, an additional 1 ASL ($53,470) and
(g) to retain the legislative provision to halt refugee claimants
at the frontier and not to admit them to Australia until their
claims to refugee status are decided, coupled with an enhancement
of frontier processing procedures;
(h) to the establishment of a senior officer (SES Level 3) in
international migration matters requiring additional resources of
0.5 ASL and $0.05rn in 1988/89, 1 ASL and $0.09m in 1989/90 and
(i) to the drafting of letters that would be issued by DILGEA
to be deported. These letters would be issued in a form consistent
CABINET-IN-CON IDENCE
[141]
[68]
97
ATTACHMENT L
with &~nex 9 t~ the ConveRtion on International Civil Aviation 1944

(the Chicago Convention).
ARGUMENTATION
2.
CAAIP recommended a refugee/SHP entry program of 15,000,
representing an increase of 1,000 on current numbers. Domestic
refugee interests, while welcoming the recommended program
increase, do not believe CAAIP has gone far enough and call for a
program of 20,000 or more with wider funding of passage costs.
However, CAAIP did not advance any rationale for its 15,000 places
which is considered to be arbitrary and inappropriate, particularly
in view of the declining number of persons presenting for
resettlement who meet our refugee admissions criteria (especially
the Indo-Chinese caseload). The recommended increases would cost
in the order of $0.5m in air fares, with additional post arrival
and social security costs.
3.
To ensure better focus on international immigration and
refugee issues, and in order to further impro\ ~ our responsiveness
to international developments as sought by CAAIP, it is proposed to
establish formally the present temporary position of Principal
Adviser, Refugee and International Affairs at the SES Level 3. The
half year ASL cost for FY 1988/89 is $0 . 05m and the full year cost
for FY 1989/90 is $0.09m.
4.
The value of this position has been well demonstrated over the
last 11 months in the range of international immigration and
refugee issues and concerns that have required a high level of
involvement by my Department. In Canada, we have seen the massive
influx of asylum seekers to the level that they have swamped the
Canadian Government's capacity to respond. A senior Australian
officer responsible for monitoring and involvement in these areas
will help ensure that Australia not only retains its high profile
in dealing with these problems, but will also prevent a similar
situation from occurring here. I believe that such an appointment
will be well received by the refugee lobby which has high
expectations as a result of their submissions to CAAIP.
5.
In the last few years, there have been significant
developments in Fiji, Sri Lanka, Africa and the Middle East, all of
which have required a review of the appropriateness of our
migration arrangements. In our own region, we have seen the
continuation of the outflow by boat of Indochinese 13 years after
collapse of the South Vietnamese Government. This has prompted
ASEAN to propose a new and comprehensive round of international
[142]
[69]
98
ATTACHMENT L
meeti!!gs to \vork out a more co!!'.prehensi ve approach (rather than

just relying on third country resettlement) which will culminate in
a major international conference in 1989.
6.
Our active and on-going involvement in UNHCR and ICM has
necessitated a high level presence in their annual council
meetings, and improving bilateral relationships with countries such
as the U. S.S.R . and the P.R.C. have flowed from or involved an
important migration component. Likewise our relationship with the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam has required complex and detailed
negotiations to ensure a safe alternative method of direct
departure for Australia of Vietnamese migrants, many of whom are
rejoining family members already here.
7.
In sum, I believe the establishment of this position will give
further impetus to the Government's ability to focus on ar.d respond
to international developments and people in distressing
humanitarian circumstances. At the same time, it will ensure that
our official consultations with other Governments and int rested
Australian community groups are conducted at a satisfactory level,
and able to achieve our international immigration and humanitarian
objectives. As the CAAIP report recognised these are an important
element in our overall migration program, and the establishment of
this senior position represents a further attempt by the Government
to be responsive to the community's interest in refugee matters.
8.
CAAIP recommended that an agency sponsorship scheme be
developed within the refugee/humanitarian program. Involving
community organisations in overseas selection of applicants for
refugee resettlement in Australia would place private agencies in
potentially sensitive international situations which would have the
potential to damage Australia's foreign relations. Requests for
Government financial assistance for their operations could be
expected. However, further consideration could be given to
involving, in a carefully defined role, affiliates of church
organisations, in the emergency rescue program.
9.
CAAIP proposed in its Model Bill the replacement of the DORS
procedure by an independent Commissioner, with applicants having
the right to appear and providing the potential for open
adversarial hearings. CAAIP believed this approach would address
complaints of apparent secrecy and lack of independence against
DORS procedures. The Model Bill also removes provisions to halt
refugee claimants at Australia's frontier while their claims are
being decided and would create a system whereby a claimant would
99
[143]
[70]
ATTACHMENT L
have to be admitted indefinitely while the claim is being heard.

The beacon effect of this proposal could find us quickly in the
position of Canada (under a system similar to that proposed by
CAAIP) which has a current active caseload of some 85,000 compared
with some 500 in Australia. A preferable approach is to strengthen
resources and procedures for handling unauthorised arrivals at the
frontier to satisfy our Convention obligations.
10. I also propose that my Department be better equipped to deal
with the situation of claimants for refugee status an others, who
arrive in Australia with forged passports, who smuggle themselves
into Australia or who otherwise destroy their national travel
documents in order to defeat efforts to secure their departure or
expulsion from Australia after the rejection of their claims for
refugee status and/or their application to remain in Australia.
International discussions under the aegis of International Civil
Aviation Organisation have firmed proposals for the issue of
letters of identity (which ar~ not travel documents) to facilitate
the removal of such persons. These proposals are expected to
culminate in a provision under the Chicago Convention on
International Civil Aviation. I propose that the Act should
provide for the issue of such letters in the appropriate cases.
BACKGROUND TO DETERMINATION OF REFUGEE STATUS IN AUSTRALIA
11. Australia's main contribution to refugee resettlement is
through allocating places in the migration program for refugees and
special humanitarian cases overseas. However, persons in Australia
or at Australia's frontier can also apply to the Minister for
Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs for residence on
the basis of claims that they are refugees . The Determination of
Refugee Status (DORS) Committee assists the Minister by
investigating and recommending on the validity of those claims.
The Minister may accept or reject the DORS recommendations or refer
cases back to DORS for review. The Minister's decisions are not
reviewable hy the AAT.
12 . The DORS Committee consists of delegates of DILGEA (chair),
DFAT, PM&C and Attorney-General's Department. A representative of
the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) participates in the
DORS process as an observer/adviser. DORS recommendations are
based on written applications and submissions, interview reports,
and material provided in confidence by international agencies and
government departments. Parameters for the DORS procedure were
established by Cabinet in 1977. It is, in relative terms, resource
100
[144]
[71]
ATTACHMENT L
efficient and has shown itself capable of evolution and adjustment

to meet changing circumstances.
13. CAAIP saw the need for an alternative to the DORS process for
two reasons:
(a) DORS, it asserted, was widely criticised for its apparent
secrecy, and
(b) applicants do not appear in person before DORS.
14. However, CAAIP did not favour a system of external review of
decisions on refugee status because of the sensitivities involved,
the special difficulties of fact-finding in such cases and the need
for a fast-track mechanism.
15. CAAIP's solution, embodied in its model Migration Bill, was a
Commissioner for Refugees who would, in effect, combine the primary
deciJion and the review decision in one process, and act as an
independent decision maker, and would:
(a) have the status of a Federal Court judge;
(b) have determinative powers;
(c) conduct full hearings of doubtful claims; and
(d) be subject to appeal on points of law but not on the merits of
cases.
16. CAAIP's Proposed Migration Bill would thus:
(a) transfer the power to decide applications for refugee status
from the Minister to an independent Commissioner;
(b) move the decision-making process into a judicial-type
adversarial arena, with applicants having the right of personal
appearance; and
(c) as presently formulated, admit to Australia persons claiming
to be refugees at Australia's frontiers for the purpose of
presenting their claims to the Commissioner. (At present, they may
be held in custody and deemed not to have entered Australia pending
DORS assessment.)
17. Arguments against CAAIP's Proposals on DORS are as follows:
(a) the Commissioner for Refugees would provide a slower and more
expensive service than DORS;
(b) through its higher public profile, the Commissioner would
attract more applicants while being less capable of handling the
resulting numbers;
(c) an independent Commissioner would seriously detract from the
Government's prerogative to handle the international sensitivities
surrounding the adjudication process and would create a public
[145]
[72]
101
ATTACHMENT L
forum for delicate issues such as the human rights performance of

other governments;
(d) the format of hearings envisaged by CAAIP could prejudice the
confidentiality of information sources now available to Government,
endanger relatives back home and provide a public platform for
applicants to denounce their home governments;
(e) by removing existing provisions to halt refugee claimants
arriving at the frontier while their claims are being decided,
CAAIP's Migration Bill would, on the experience of other Western
countries such as Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany and
Switzerland, attract to Australia large numbers of claimants, many
of them dubious -and thereby effectively shift Australia's major
refugee effort from overseas to onshore;
(f) divert resources and settlement places from more needy refugee
situations elsewhere in the world to deal with claimants who make
their own way to Australia; and
(g) massively block the refugee determination system.
18. The Attorney-General's Department does not give unqualified
support to the CAAIP proposal for a Commissioner for Refugees, but
on different grounds from those above . It believes that it would
be inconsistent with other se~tions of the draft Bill, as well as
with the Government's approach elsewhere to the reviewability of
administrative decisions, to exclude determination of refugee
status decisions from a two-tier system providing for full,
independent review on the merits. Its desired objectives in such a
system would be:
(a) independence from government;
(b) public hearings subject to confidentiality safeguards; and
(c) right of appearance by applicants or their legal
representatives.
19. The Attorney-General's Department's preferred option is for
external review by the AAT of Ministerial decisions following
consideration by the DORS Committee. As an alternative, it favours
retention of a DORS-type Committee and creation of a determinative
review body - the Commissioner for Refugees.
20. DILGEA, DFAT _and PM&C share a basic consensus that the DORS
process be retained. They see some scope for enhancing the current
DORS rocedures~ presentation and internal review mechanisms.
However, they believe that the refugee determination mechanism and
decisions should remain within ultimate Ministerial control for
reasons associated with:
[146]
[73]
102
(a)
ATTACHMENT L
sensitivity of caseload, including foreign pol i cy
implications;
(b)
obligations as to confidentiality;
(c)
protection of applicants and their families back home;
(d)
the magnet
effe~t
of a higher-profile, determinatlon process
on speculative non bona fide claims;

(e)
need for speedy and flexible processing;
(f)
cost effectiveness and resource efficiency.
21.
Should it be agreed to retain and enhance the current DORS
mechanism it is estimated that some $103,500 will be required in

1988/89 to commence planning for enhanced procedures and $612,000
will be required in 1989/90 to implement new procedures.
These
figures include the availability of expert refugee staff at major

Australian airports, adequate support in Canberra (total 8 ASL) and
the use of automated technology to reduce processing times, while
meeting our international and legal obligations.
Eight ASL
($428,000) and $40,000 for support will be required in 1990/91 and

1991/92.
22.
While the enhanced procedures proposed in this Submission are
costed at $468,000 per annum (with a once only establishment cost

of $170,000), my Department has estimated that the CAAIP Model
(which would require four people with the status of a Federal Court
Judge), would cost $2,013,000 per annum.
23.
Finance supports the Submission's proposals in relation to the
size of the refugee and humanitarian program and the procedures for
determining refugee status.
24.
Finan~e
considers that, consistent with CM 12033, tne proposal
to provide additional resources for the DORS procedures should be

means of resolving minor new policy.
25.
Finance also questions the need for the establishment of
Principal Adviser for Refugee and International Affairs.

26.
DFAT supports the recommendation to retain and enhance the
present determination of refugee status (DORS) procedures.

27.
..

.
- --
P (o) for the Act to authorise the issue of letters consistent with
[147]
[74]
ATTACHMENT L
103
28.
DSS also supports the retention and enhancement.of the DORS

29.
Paragraph l(f):
The Department opposes this recommendation
and believes that the exlsting procedures are flawed in terms of

administrative review principles.
The Department's preferred
option is for review of DORS decisions by the AAT.
AAT procedures
can be suitably adapted to ensure protection of confidentiality,

and to dea l expeditiously wi th app l ications.
The Submission does
not put forward any cogent reasons for rejecting AAT review.
The
question for decision is a question of fact, namely, whether the

applicant has a well founded fear of persecution (for a reason set
out in the Convention).
The AAT is the appropriate mechanism to
settle disputed questions of fact.
In regard to the issues of
political sensitivities the Department believes that those issues

should be kept separate from the refugees status decision process
and would not be prejudiced by confidential AAT review.
Those
issues are relevant when considering whether to grant a refugee

asylum, that is, whether the refugee is to be allowed to stay in
Australia.
There is no obligation on Australia to provide asylum
to a refugee under the Convention, only an obligation not to return

a refugee to a country where his or her life or freedom would be
threatened.
30.
The Department believes the criticisms of the CAAIP refugee
proposals are over-stated.
Most of the criticisms could be met by
appropriate modifications of the model Bill.

31.
Paragraph l(g):
The Department opposes this recommendation
and is of the view that DILGEA should bring forward a separate

Cabinet Submission on reforming section 36A of the Migration Act.
In the Department's view section 36A, which provides that a person
may be detained in custody, is unacceptable in that it does not
provide a mechanism or a criteria for review of the decision.
Persons in s36A custody are 'deemed' not to have entered Australia.
While the Department believes that existing provisions dealing with
persons attempting to enter Australia in circumstances where they
would~become pr~h~bited
non-citizens serve a useful purpose, those
provisions do not safeguard human rights.
The provision has been
strongly criticised by the Human Rights Commission.
In the
Department's view the CAAIP recommendations providing a magistrate
[148]
[1]
104
ATTACHMENT L
with a power to grant bail in appropriate cases have much to

commend them.
32.
The Attorney-General's Department seeks Cabinet agreement
that, should Cabinet decide to maintain the existing DORS

Committee, the Attorney-General's Department no longer be a member
of that Committee.
The reasons for seeking this approval relate to
the resource implications for the Department and its experience

relating to the Committee.
In light of that experience it seems to
the Department that there is no need for the Attorney-General's

Department to be involved in policy considerations raised by
individual cases being considered by the Committee.
So far as
legal advice is concerned, other Departments represented on the

Committee now have extensive experience with the general operation
of the Refugee Convention.
The relevant legislation and procedural
requirements have been explained on many occasions.
There is no
need for this Department to be represented at each meeting to

repeat these
explanat~ons.
Where legal advice is required in
relation to a matter arising in an individual case, the Department

will continue to be available to provide advice when requested.
[149]
[2]
ATTACHMENT M
105
SETTLEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
(a)
DILGEA concentrate its settlement programs on the needs-based

outcomes;
(b)
in accordance with this aim, DILGEA re-focus its settlement
activities, paying particular attention to:

(i)
targeting its programs to priority needs of the annual intake
associated with the circumstances of their migration;

(ii) clarification of DILGEA's strategic role in settlement through
phasing out duplications with other agencies having regard to their
access and equity commitments; and
(iii)the appropriateness of cost recovery measures for its
programs.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
CAAIP recommends that DILGEA shift its priority in settlement
services to immigrants who have been resident less than two years,
and that thereafter immigrants become the responsibility of
appropriate service delivery and policy departments.
3.
In my consultations on
C~IP
I have noted a community concern
that the two year rule would be a formula for DILGEA arbitrarily
withdrawing from services and a State Government concern that they
would need to respond to subsequent service gaps.
4.
The current debate on CAAIP has also highlighted that
settlement policies are seen as poorly targeted and attract

community concern.
For example CAAIP found that people question
the commitment of immigrants without adequate English and

commentators allege that ethnically based services fuel an 'ethnic
industry' and 'tribalise' society.
5.
The Commonwealth has never defined a clear settlement role for
DILGEA.
CAAIP and the current immigration controversy make it
opportune to resolve ambiguities and DILGEA's relationship to other

service providers.
6.
Historically DILGEA's primary concern has been to meet core
on-arrival settlement needs, eg English language instruction,

interereting
as~i3tance,
refugee accommodation.
But it has also
responded to residual needs and plugged service gaps thereby

reducing pressure on service providers to fulfil access and equity
obligations.
[150]
[3]
106
ATTACHMENT M
7.
Acceptance of CAAIP's two year rule for settlement would
involve pressure on DILGEA to duplicate generally ava~lable
services, and prematurely exit some clients from key
programs/services (eg initial settlement English).
8.
Alternatively, I propose a greater focus within DILGEA
programs and services on priority needs, especially the initial
settlement needs of the migration intake. This would more
effectively convert migration program objectives into related
social and economic outcomes. New arrivals would thus be less
likely to accumulate unmet needs beyond the initial settlement
period.
9.
In conjunction with access and equity policies being
implemented in general services:
(a) DILGEA activities which duplicate these would be phased out;
(b) the resources involved would be redirected on a priority needs
basis especially to recent arrivals;
(c) cost recovery measures would be introduced in some
program/service areas (eg English instruction and interpreting
services) in order to invest more resources to meet priority needs
and improve service outcomes.
10. Specifically this would mean DILGEA:
(a) helping people with needs associated with the processes and
circumstances of migration (eg torture/trauma problems of refugees;
the social and cultural isolation of women);
(b) emphasising linking migrants quickly into the basic res?urces
they require from general services (eg income support, employment
services, housing);
(c) being a co-ordinator and catalyst to help general services
respond appropriately to on-arrival needs as access and equity
policy requires;
(d) refocusing program guidelines so that:
(i) English language instruction achieves effective social
interaction, and employment or further education and training at
level of skill
(ii) community grants develop the capacity of organisations to
obtain continuing resourcing of their needs from general providers
(iii)on-arrival refugee assistance accelerates effective settlement
in the~communit~ _~nd minimises long term social and welfare costs .
11. Disquiet among established client groups and general service
providers can be answered on the basis that DILGEA would not
withdraw from service provision without the prospect of alternative
[151]
[4]
CABINET-I -CO FIDENCE

ATTACHMENT M
107
service arrangements. My proposal is consistent with the Advisory

Council on Multicultural Affairs' discussion paper on a National_
Agenda for Multicultural Australia; is an inevitable and necessary
corollary to achieving access and equity; and should be presented
on that basis.
12.
The Department particularly notes and supports the thrust of
the recommendations relating to migrant settlement, particularly

the proposal that DILGEA should emphasise linking migrants' needs
quickly into general services.
More specifically, the Department
considers that more effective methods are required to improve the

flow of health information about new arrivals to State and
Territory health authorities.
13.
PM&C supports the proposed changes to the settlement role of
DILGEA but notes that the Department will not withdraw from the
provision of services until appropriate alternative service
arrangements have been made.
14 .
The proposals for a balance of family requirement for parents
and tighter enforcement of assurances of support may require that

special and/or improved services be provided to assist women beyond
the initial settlement period.
15.
Finance supports the re-ordering of priorities in the
settlement programs through concentration on newly-arrived migrants

and through avoiding duplication with other agencies.
Finance
considers, however, that greater attention should be given to cost

recovery, particularly as a means of offsetting increased cost
requirements.
[152]
[5]
108
ATTACHMENT N
ACCOUNTABLE DECISION MAKI NG

RECOl:-1MENDATION
1.
(a) to a two-tier system of review involving statutory first-tier
the AAT;
(b) to a net additional $2 . 1m and 21.3 ASL in 1989/90, rising to
$4.8m and 65.9 ASLin 1990-91 for the implementation of the system;
(c) to note that castings are based on the assumptions at Figure 1
in this Attachment, which build on AAT experience in other
jurisdictions, and the poss i ble need for revision if there is any
significant departure from these assumptions; and
(d) to note that the Minister for Justice is bringing forward a
separate submission on access to legal aid which will canvass,
inter-alia, the limitation of legal aid to seek administrative or
judicial review of decisions on immigration status to citizens and
permanent residents of Australia.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
A revised framework for immigration decision-making is
detailed in the Model Bill recommended by CAAIP. Echoing the views
of the Administrative Review Council (ARC) in its Report No 25 on
the Review of Migration Decisions and the Human Rights Commission,
the Bill envisages that most migration decisions be subject to
external merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
(AAT), with standing granted to all affected persons in Aust~alia
and sponsors of affected persons outside Australia. Affected
persons within Australia would however be rationed to one AAT
review per stay. CAAIP also envisages that migration policies be
formulated as statutory rules so that the AAT could not devise
policies that differed from government policy.
3.
The ARC's earlier proposal for a two-tier review structure was
modified by CAAIP to a one-tier system of direct application to the
AAT, on the basis that the AAT is the most credible review body and
it would be more economical to have only one external tier.
Application to the AAT would activate high quality internal review
in the Department pending the hearing of the AAT appeal.
4.
While immigration law and ethnic groups generally support the
broad !hrust of ~h~ Bill in relation to review, some suggest that:
(a) a full two-tier review system is preferable;
(b) policy should be set out in the Act or Regulations, rather
than in statutory rules;
[153]
[6]
109
ATTACHMENT N
(c) there should be a statutory right to internal review;

(d) there should be no automatic limit on the numbe~ of times an
applicant can seek AAT review; and
(e) refugee determination decisions should be reviewable by the
AAT.
:)
5.
There are strong arguments in favour of opening up migration
decisions to review by the AAT. Immigration is the only
significant area of decision-making affecting the individual which
is not subject to external determinative merits review, and
successive reports have recommended its introduction, raising at
the same time public expectations that this will occur. The lack
of an external merits review mechanism may also explain why
immigration decisions represent the greatest number of cases of any
portfolio brought before the Federal Court under the prov i sions of
the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) AD(JR) Act 1977. In
1987 94 cases before the court involved immigration matters,
representing 32.5% of the total AD(JR) caseload. Cabinet last
examined the question of review of immigration decisions in late
1986 and agreed to preparatory work being undertaken to provide for
the introduction of a two level determinative merits review system,
subject to consultation and further consideration by Cabinet. This
process was overtaken by CAAIP.
6.
Options for change involve an assessment of the benefits of
external determinative merits review against the expenditure
requirements in a time of budget restraint and delays in
decision-making which, unlike in other jurisdictions, serve to
benefit applicants where they are already in Australia.
7.
The CAAIP one-tier proposal would involve direct reference to
the AAT of a high volume caseload: some 12,000 cases p.a. based on
current standing and classes of reviewable decisions. Such a model
builds in high cost (an estimated additional $23.23m in a full
year) and significant potential delay.
8.
A two-tier system of review would be cheaper than the CAAIP
Model by filtering the numbers proceeding to full AAT review. The
model I favour involves statutory first-tier review by a unit
within my department, followed by a largely unfettered application
to the AAT. It should be made clear that Departmental review
offic~rs woul~ _ gp~rate independently of primary decision makers and
not be subject to direction as to the manner of the exercise of a
discretion in individual cases. The majority of reviews involve
decisions .-ta ken_ .O)Jer:seas.:_ whe..r.e -hQwe.v.e,l;,.. iii- Nl'C' ecision is to be
[154]
[7]
ATTACHMENT N
110
reviewed, the applicant may request that the review be done at an

office other than that at which the primary decision was taken.
9.
Internal review is a quick and resource efficient means for
addressing errors in or change of circumstances since the primary

decision so that the- AAT does not become clogged with readily
resolvable cases.
The indicatlve cost for this two-tier system is
an additional $4 . 8m p.a. when fully operational, assuming retention

of the fee for internal review.
With the move to AAT review, there
may be further consequential savlngs through a reduction in Federal

Court and associated costs.
10.
The fuller enunciation of migratlon policy in statutory form
is a prerequisite to new review procedures if the integrity of the

migration program is to be maintained.
Given leadtimes involved, I
propose the phased introduction of the new review system, with the
progressive referral of classes of decision.
The existing system
of non-statutory Immigration Review Panels would be phased out in

tandem.
11.
One class of decision which I do not propose to be reviewable
is that relating to the DORS.
While policy for other categories of
migration decisions can be varied should an external review body
put a new or undesirable interpretation on existing guidelines,

refugee decisions are based on internationally accepted guidelines
which cannot be altered by the Australian Government.
No body
which is not accountable for the results of refugee decisions

should be allowed to interpret these international
guideline~
on
behalf of the Government (see also Attachment L).

12.
Another class of decision which I do not propose to be
reviewable is that relating to security matters or to security

assessments.
Where a decision is otherwise reviewable, I propose
that the security element of that decision (if any) be not

reviewable by the AAT.
In addition, the Minister should be
empowered to exclude review of an otherwise reviewable decision by

the making of a conclusive certificate on grounds of security,
defence or international relations.
13.
Both tiers of review would be urged to determine all matters
in dispute between the parties (except refugee status

determinations) as far as possible, and would be given the
neces~ry powe~~ - to
do this.
Applicants would also be required to
identify all their claims so that decisions could be aggregated,

both at the primary and review stages.
Put simply, a person may
[155]
[8]
ATTACHMENT N
111
stay - temporarily or permanently - if not, they must leave within

a determined time.
14.
Once a decision has been taken, and upon application reviewed,
a person may not make another application for a decision within one
year, except where there is a significant change in circumstances
occurring after the decision making process is completed, such as a
major upheaval in the horne country, or marriage to an Australian
resident.
I further propose t,hat a second application taken within
the one year period not be reviewable.

15.
The legislative changes required to support these proposals
are detailed at Attachment P.

16.
In September, Cabinet considered a submission on Legal Aid:
State and Territory Agreements and Aid To Prohibited Non-Citizens

(6033) brought forward by the Minister for Justice which canvassed
inter alia the provision of legal aid to prohibited non-citizens.
The Submission noted that Australia's international obligations to
provide legal aid do not extend to civil proceedings, and could
arguably be limited to the most serious criminal matters where the
interests of justice
requi~e
it.
Cabinet agreed that the issue of
legal aid to prohibited non-citizens be settled when it considered

the Government's response to the CAAIP report.
17.
I believe that important distinctions can be drawn in relation
to classes of persons and classes of decisions in the provision of

legal aid.
In 1985 the House of Representatives Standing Committee
on Expenditure, in its report 'Who Calls Australia Horne'

recommended that access to legal aid to contest immigration
decisions should besubject to an eligibility test on 'residence
grounds' and that applicants must be 'in Australia lawfully'.
The
scope of the exclusion is unclear from the phrasing, although it

certainly embraces prohibited non-citizens and possibly also
holders of temporary entry permits.
CAAIP also queried the
provision of legal aid to non-citizens 'frivolously' appealing

decisions taken under the Migration Act.
However, it appeared to
exclude asylum-seekers and refugee claimants from this restriction.

18.
My preferred position is that no legal aid be provided to
persons who do not hold a valid entry permit unrestricted as to

time to seek administrative or judicial review of decisions on
their
~esident ~t9tus.
This would mean that legal aid would not be
available in these circumstances to persons:

(a)
illegally in the country (including those in immigration
detention);
[156]
[9]
112
ATTACHMENT N
(b) denied entry to the country (persons in Australia under the

provisions of s36A of the Migration Act); and
(c) persons who are the holders of entry permits restricted as to
time (eg. visitors, students, working holiday makers).
19. The approach I have outlined involves a wider class of persons
than prohibited non-citizens alone, although in denying benefits to
persons other than lawful permanent residents it is consistent with
the Government's approach in other key areas of social welfare,
such as social security and health services. This approach does
not, however, address the wider question of denying aid to
prohibited non-citizens for classes of matters beyond review of
immigration status decisions. These matters are to be explored
more fully in a submission which the Minister for Justice is
bringing forward jointly with me.
20. PM&C consider that the burden on the review process will be
substantially reduced if the regulations under the proposed Act
place tighter restrictions on the grant of resident status to those
holding temporary entry permits than are currently applied under
s.6A(1) of the Migration Act.
21. The Department supports the Minister's proposal for first-tier
statutorily-based internal review with appeal to the AAT.
22. The Department considers that no charge should be levied for
Departmental internal review.
23. One aspect of the proposal to broaden the categories of
decisions eligible for review, which does not appear to be
addressed in the Submission, is whether applicants whose temporary
entry permits may expire before the initial decision to grant or
refuse resident status is made by the Department will be permitted
to avail themselves of the review process.
24. In relation to the review of decisions under the Migration
Act, Finance is not convinced that extending the jurisdiction of
the AAT to migration decisions is justified given the additional
costs involved. Instead the current system could be revamped at a
fraction of the cost. If Ministers decide that, to be consistent
with ~11 othe~ ~~~es of administrative decision-making, migration
decisions should be appealable to the AAT, Finance considers it is
imperative that departments undertake the new review arrangements
within the estimates contained in the Submission.
[157]
[10]
113
25.
ATTACHMENT N
Finance supports the proposal that legal-aid to seek
administrative or judicial review of decisions on immigration

status be limited to citizens and permanent residents of Australia.
26.
DSS notes that .convincing reasons for moving to an external
review system have not been made, particularly given the facts that
the system of Ministerial responsibility has worked well,
Government control over: the intake is vital in the public interest,
access to the AAT can be abused as a timing tactic and the AAT is
costly and already over-loaded.
27.
The preferred position in Attachment N that legal aid be only
available to persons who hold entry permits unrestricted as to time
is noted.
The question of legal aid to persons other than
Australian nationals and permanent residents is the subject of a

separate submission by the Minister for Justice.
28.
The Attorney-General's Department, while supporting the
principle of two-tier determinative review, considers that the

review proposals are incomplete and include inappropriate policies.
29.
The Attorney-General's Department opposes the proposal
(paragraph 14) that once a decision has been taken and reviewed, a
person may not make an application for the review of any further
decision made within 1 year.
If a fresh decision is taken, that
fresh decision should also be subject to review.
The appropriate
remedy, if there is concern about abuse, is to restrict the

circumstances in which a fresh decision may be sought.
[158]
[11]
ll4
S'I:J\TllJ'ClW llTrEl{/l.-\1. REVIEW I>.TTII APJ - wi th single r.e:-.!:::- , R~TRJ t1'Ei l STAI!Dirl:;
: : DEPAR'IMEllf I
::
ITIJi
!:
Jll;EJK:'{
ATIACH1ElTr . fl. FIOJRE
1989;90
ASL
1990/91
::
Sm
::
A5L
1991/92
Sm
ASL
Sm
....
~~--~==~~~~~~========================~m.--~================, .~============~===z: ~=================
'' ''
''
''
''
''
''
''
''
''
1. Internal Review incl
DII.GEA
Statutory officers
2. Coc j:lreparation - AAT
32.5
1.57
65.0
3'.13
65.0
3.13
20 . 7
1.00
41.1
/..00
~1.4
2.00
2.1
0.10
3.1
Oa 15
3.l
0.15
II
3. Dept Representation
at the AAT
II
o I
0 I
I 0
''
''
'.
4. , Counsel Representation
at the AKI'
ki~n
Total - DII.GEA
Offsets
!lEI - DII.GEA
Q.Ql
''
:I
''
3.11 '
-1.09 :
2.02 :
55.3
''
I'------------------- '
:----------------------------------------------------------------4. 0
1. Preliminary Hearings
0.35
.''''
2. Hearings
9.2
0.02 ::
0.87
I~------------------- '
''
0.02
0.44
''
''
''
..
.'''
10
''
''
5.
Expenses
'.':--------------------------------------------------- ----------~--
.:I'
0 . 42
0.87 ::
-------------------'
------------------
109.5
6.17
109.5
I
6.17 :
-2.18 :
16.2
-2.18 :
3.98 :
3. 98 :
.' --------
-------------------:
19.4
0.70
16.2
0 . 70
0.84
19.4
0 . 84
3. Accomn:x:lation costs
0.66
- Establishrrent
- 01-going
I:----------------------------------------------------------------Total - AAT
Offsets
!lEI AAT
0. 44
0.22 :
0.44 :.
----------------.
t ____ _ ______________ l
-----------------1
01
:
::
::
13 . 2
1.65 :
-0.20 :
1.45 :
35.6
II
1.99 :
-0.39 :
1.60
35.6
:I
1.99 ::
-0.39 ::
1.60 ::
::------------------- ------------------ ------------------..'

----------------------------------------------------------------ATICRNEY-GENERAL's 1. Costs assoc. with AAT
(incl. AGS
&
court reporting)
2. Legal Aid =sts
'
.'
10
I 0
2.3
0.23
9.3
0.47
9.3
0.47 ::
o.s
0.05
1.9
0.09
1.9
0.09 ::
II
II
II
10
Total - A-G' s
TOrAL !lEI - REVIEW
'IOIAL GROSS - REVIEW
2.8
0.28
11.2
71.3
71.3
3.75
5.0
156.3
156.3
0.56
''
II
II
-2.58 ::
-2.58 ::
-------------------1 1----------------' I
Total offsets
-1.29
Cost J=er Case
$288.84
:s472.41 ::
13000
2340
4.0
0.5
1000 . 0
4.0
0.9
226.0
32713
1.47
7917.0
0.1
40.0
300.0
1800.0
560.0
190.0
700.0
300.0
200.0
240.0
30.0
13000
2340
4.0
0.5
1000.0
4.0
0.9
226.0
32713
1.47
7917.0
0.1
40.0
300.0
1800.0
560.0
190.0
700.0
300.0
200.0
240.0
30.0
**" BASIC ASSUMPTICt5:

DII.GEA Total nunl::er of review cases expecte::i
Number of cases expected to reach AAT
Tille taken to prepare docune."Jtation for t.he ANr - days
Tille taken to hear cases at the AOJ - i n days
Avg cost of counsel for Dept at AKI' per day
Percentage of cases requirirq counsel i n AAT
Productivity of case officers in internal revie<-
Number of working days J=er year
Average salary for DII.GEA staff
On-costs for staff - J=ercentage
Administrative expenses base::i on cost per A5L
Tille taken at preliminary conferences at AAT - in days
AAT % of cases c;ping to a full hearing
Cost of each preliminary oonference
Cost of single member hearing per day
Accamcda tion establish!rent costs
01-going accomrodation costs
ATICRNEY-GENERAL's Cost to A-G's for each hearing day at the AKI'
Cost of court reporting per hearing day
Legal Aid costs (per case)
FEES Level of fees (to apply to cases reaching AKI')
% of cases resulting in refunds
0.56 ::
------------------~ '
6.14
156.3
6.14 '
8. 7 :'
156.3
8. 7 : :
II
I
I
NCJrES:
11.2
' I
I 0
$472.41
13000
2340
4.0
0.5
1000.0
4.0
0.9
226 . 0
32713
1.47
7917.0
0.1
40.0
300.0
1800 .o
560.0
190.0
700.0
300.0
200.0
240.0
30.0
1) Total review cases does rot include p:>tential lldditional 2230 if Balance of FamJ.ly option adopted.
2) Admin. per ASL changed from S5,000 to $7,917- represents accepte::i DOF figure of $7,000 with 2 price
adjustlrents.
3) 01costs fi"gure change::i f"rom 1.62% to 1.47%-- represents PSB standard 83 . 8% reduce::i for Admin. & Superannuation o::np:>nents.
4) Fee offset figure base::i on assunption of all a~ls l::eing charge::i. Further fee paye::i at AAT stage.
5) Establistment
& ongoing accomn:x:lation costs for AKI' changed on advice fran A-Gs.
6) Productivity rate change::i to . 9 - represents 200 cases per ASL - figure use::i in foNard est.iJmtes.
7) Average Dilgea salary changed - represents lXF agreed Review average salary adjusted for O::tol::er 88 NWC.
8) Legal Aid costs include::i on
'1J:.
ro
[159]
[12]
CABINET-IN~CONFIDENCE
ATTACHMENT 0
115
ENFORCEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.
I recommend that Cabinet agree to
(a)
character;
(b)
provide $200,000 for a consultancy project on options for
upgrading detention facilities; and

(c)
provide $389,000 in 1989/90, $45,000 in 1990/91 and $45,000 in
1991/92 for Detention Centre improvements.
ARGUMENTATION
2.
CAAIP considered that responsibility for apprehension,
detention and enforcement of departure of prohibited non-citizens

should be largely transferred from DILGEA to the general law
enforcement and justice systems.
The Model Bill provides that
unauthorised stay in Australia is a continuing offence, punishable

on summary conviction, with the ordinary rules for detention and
bail applying.
Responsibility for apprehension and custody is not
specified but could, within the terms of the Bill, involve Federal
or State police.
3.
Ethnic and immigration law groups have opposed the provisions
as harsh and oppressiye. __ From an administrative and policy

viewpoint, the proposals also raise many practical and
philosophical difficulties relating to:
the capacity of the
Magistrates' Courts to process the caseload; systematic use of

State prisons for detention purposes; demands on the legal
a~d
budget given the criminalisation of the offence; the priority

likely to be accorded to the endorsement function by the States'
law enforcement and justice systems; and the budgetary demands of
the States should the proposal proceed.
4.
The CAAIP approach to enforcement needs to be understood in
terms of the logic of the total legislative package.
The
conceptual starting point is the proposal that immigration

decisions be reviewable by the AAT.
This reshapes the
administrative landscape, as persons in Australia who are seeking

to stay can draw out the resolution of their cases through the
sequential use of review and appeal provisions.
To reduce delay,
it is necessary to reduce the number of reviewable decisions.

CAAIP'fl
solutioq _ ~~s
to hive off the deportation decision into the
judicial arena, hence quarantining it from administrative review.

5.
Although the mechanism adopted by CAAIP to quarantine the
deportatiCAsil\tET- lN~C'oN
FIDcENeCE
sensible and
[160]
[13]
116
ATTACHMENT 0
reasonable. The core decision affecting the individual is that

relating to entry: enforcement action is simply consequential on
an unfavourable outcome. Provided the entry decision is
reviewable, the deportation decision need not be. An analogy can
be drawn with the taxation jurisdiction, where the assessment
decision is reviewable, but recovery action is not.
6.
My preferred approach is to provide for the issue of the
deportation order to be a mandatory decision, to be taken once an
applicant has, after exhausting review rights, failed to depart
within a prescribed period. The legislative regime involved is
detailed at Attachment P.
7.
The level of my Department's enforcement activity is
constrained by the availability of space in its detention centres
(located in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth) and the extent to which it
is prepared to use State gaols, on a cost-recovery basis, for the
detention of prohibited non-citizens.
8.
Accommodation pressures are most acute in the Sydney and
Melbourne centres and in Brisbane where the available gaol is
unsuitable. The Block Scrutiny _recommended the disposal of the
existing Sydney centre and its relocation to a site near the
International Airport. Agreement in principle was given by the
Prime Minister but action was deferred pending the outcome of
CAAIP. New or expanded facilities in these three locations are
estimated to require some $15.5 m for construction and fit out
(with some offsets for sale of the present Sydney site).
9.
Detention centres are a high cost detention option, at the
level of security currently provided. An arrangement where the
NSW, Queensland and Victorian Governments could provide an adequate
facility as part of their prison system would take some years to
come to operational fruition.
10. I propose, prior to embarking on major new works, to engage
consultants to advise on the cost and design of new facilities,
including required security levels, ($200,000), and the merits of
alternative options, including exclusive reliance on state
government facilities. The cost of the consultancy is very modest
compared with the $15.5m for major construction works in Sydney,
Melbourne and Brisbane.
11. ~me work . i$._urgently required in the interim to upgrade
facilities at the Melbourne centre to make it suitable for the
accommodation of family groups ($230,000). The unsatisfactory
al ternati
cAsssleNet:ofl\1:cOiN'r!ioes
(;JEdistress and
[161]
[14]
CAB I ET- N CONFIDENCE

ATTACHMENT 0
117
financial hardship for wife and children while the husband is in

detention.
Routine minor works are also required to .maintain the
existing centres in Sydney ($100,000) and Melbourne ($136,000).
12.
In Attachment P, I am proposing that the Act be amended to
allow release of detainees on conditions.
This has the potent i al
of decreasing the number of detainees and hence reduce the pressure

on detention accommodation.
13.
In, Attachment P, I am also proposing the seizure of assets of
deportees to defray, inter alia, the cost of detention.
Th i s would
increase cost recovery of detention.

14.
The Department of Administrative Services (DAS) supports the

detention centres.
In the light of the Block Efficiency Scrutiny's

15.
PM&C supports the Submission but notes that funding for
Detention Centre improvements should be considered in the normal

Budget process for 1989-90 and consideration should be given to
absorbing the costs of the proposed consultancy project within
existing portfolio allocations.
16.
Finance considers that, consistent with CM 12033, the proposa l
to provide additional resources for a consultancy on detention

centre~
and
m~~q~_~pgrading
of detention centres should be

means of resolving minor new policy.
Finance questions whether the
CABINET IN-CONFIDENCE
[162]
[15]
118
ATTACHMENT 0
consultancy duplicates the 1987 Block Scrutiny of detention

centres.
[163]
[16]
119
ATTACHMENT P
MIGRATION ACT AMENDMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
I recommend that Cabinet agree to amend the Act to:
(a) provide for a two tier review system: internal review
followed by AAT review;
(b) allow for legislatively based internal review, within my
Department;
(c) empower the Governor-General to make regulations setting up
procedures of the first tier;
(d) empower the Governor-General to make regulations prescribing
recommendatory;
(e) exclude from AAT review security decisions and security
(f) empower the Minister to issue conclusive certificates
(g) provide that all prescribed decisions are reviewable
automatically by the AAT only afte~ determination by the first tier
(h) insert a provision where both tiers of review are urged and
Act (that are in dispute between the parties to the review) py
requiring the applicants to make any or all additional applications
tier;
(i) allow for regulations to be made specifying:
(i) migration entry categories;
(ii) policy criteria - entitlements/restrictions for each category;
(iii)decisions, which are presently made under statutory
regulations (these discretions would cease to have effect - by
procl~ation- to_coincide with the making of regulations);
(iv) the factors applicable to categories subject to "points
testing";
CABINET-IN-CONFIDE NCE
[164]
[17]
120
:)
ATTACHMENT P
(v) the mechanism for 'rolling over' applications in the pool (ie.
neither qualified nor rejected under the prevailing pass and
failure marks) and for their ultimate approval or rejectiDn;
(vi) charge and recovery of fees in respect of review for internal
review and to remit; - refund or waive such fees;
(j) allow the Minister by notice in the Gazette to prescribe the
(k) remove the discretion to deport under s.l8 and provide for
automat i c departure - failing which i t wou l d be mandatory to order
deportation where permits have been denied or not sought. Once a
(1) provide that the Secretary rather than the Minister is the
security/defence grounds) with the Secretary being empowered to
(m) empower the Minister to give decision-makers directions as to
(n) empower the Minister to substitute his/her decision fo~ that
(o) allow for release from custody under s.38 and s.39 on
conditions irnpo~ed by authorised officers. Conditions would
(p) allow for seizure (and sale) of property of persons
resulting from the detention/deportation;
(q) require applicants for GORS under s.6A(l)(b) to hold valid
(r) provide for the issue of letters consistent with Annex 9 to
(s) ~rovide thak the liability for an Assurance of Support
[165]
[18]
CA-BINET-IN-CONFIDENCE
121
(t)
ATTACHMENT P
allow the Governor-General to make regulations concerning the
management of detention centres and to regulate the
~ights
of

Officers); and
(u)
provide for tha amendments to come into force on a date to be
proclaimed.
ARGUMENTATION
EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL REVIEW
2.
This is covered in Attachment N.
AAT REVIEW AND REGULATIONS

3.
AAT Review should be provided in Regulations as and when the
criteria for making those decisions are set out in the Regulations.
4.
There are significant problems in providing AAT jurisdiction
without specifying policy entitlements and restrictions in

regulations.
The principal one being that the AAT - lacking
guidance - would effectively be free to determine its own policy.

Moreover, it would be likely to grant many more approvals than
anticipated by the Government when setting the program.
So program
overrun would be likely.

5.
AAT Review should be tied to the making of regulations; to
achieve this, provision should be made for the making of

regulations by the Governor-General that would specify the
decisi.ons that would be subject to AAT Review.
6.
Refugee decisions, security decisions and security elements of
reviewable decisions are proposed to be excluded from AAT reyiew.

The Minister may also exclude other decisions on grounds of
security, defence or international relations.
This is covered in
Attachment N.
7.
The transition from an administrative regime founded on wide
discretions into a structured administrative regime is difficult.

It will require the distillation of broad policy guidelines
governing a myriad of decisions and variety of human circumstances
into rules of law.
This unavoidably, though regrettably, would
involve trial and error.

8.
This transition is the underlying reason for the two
fundamental aspects of my approach to AAT review of migration

decisions.
9.
F~rst,
it
~qtorces
an incremental approach to identify the
classes of decisions and their respective criteria of decisions.

The size of the task would mean that, unless the task is segmented
[166]
[19]
ATTACHI:1ENT P
122
into manageable portions, implementation of the response to CAAIP

would be deferred for many months.
10.
Second, it enforces resort to delegated legislation. Until
the process of articulation of the classes of decision is done, it
is difficult (howeve-.r: -desirable such a course is) to put those
matters in the Act itself. To do so at this stage would require
constant resort to amending legislation until the settllng in
period is complete.
In all this, I have in mind that migration administration
requires constant fine-tuning of the criteri a to meet external
11.
pressure and opportunities.

12. Furthermore, while I accept the desirability of putting the
jurisdiction of the AAT in the Act, the necessity for the classes
of decision to be formulated (at least init i ally in Regulations)
forces me to propose that matters pertaining to the jurisdi ction of
the AAT should also be written into the Regulations.
Nonetheless, those solutions mean that rapid, though
progressive, implementation of our response to CAAIP would be put
in train. The translations of inaccessible administrative criteria
by published rules that underwent Parliamentary scrutiny would be a
13.
big advance in terms of professional administration and or

responsible government. The extension of AAT review of decisions,
subject to criteria laid down by the Executive and scrutinised by
Parliament, is a considerable extension to the rights of citizens
and permanent residents to seek high quality review of migra~ion
decisions that they have an interest in.
REGULATION MAKING POWER - MIGRATION POLICY (ENTITLEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS)
14. The Act should be amended to empower the Governor-General to
make regulations that would set down policies - entitlements and
restrictions - under the Act. These regulations could deal with
specific policy areas or cover all of a broad policy area
(including decision-making criteria for decisions under the Act
generally). The five broad categories of policy are:
(1)
migration to Australia (2) grant of permanent residence of persons
in Australia (3) temporary/visitor programs (4) humanitarian
programs (5) compliance decisions. There would be legal
compl~ities anq _ ~dministrative difficulties in having regulations
in force for some categories while leaving others subject to wide
statutory discretion - particularly where the policy criteria were
not clear
cAesifN~t-lN~
c Oal\f
FfoE i\1
c ue ani tar ian"
[167]
[20]
123
circumstances).
ATTACHMENT P
Apart from the complexity of having dual systems,
there would be abuse - applicants refused under regulation

controlled categories would reapply under the wide discretion
categories.
15.
I consider that the preferable course would be for all
regulations to be made at one time with the provisions of the Act

relating to visas/permits deportation etc., being repealed and set
out in the regulations.
However, the high workload involved
precludes all the regulations being drafted by Budget Session, and

a phased program of regulation drafting will be necessary.
16.
Upon these regulations being made - then the broad discretion
provisions of the Act (relating to issuing and cancellation of

visas/permits and deportation) would cease to have operation for
the categories of policy the regulations cover - as they would be
covered in the Regulations.
17.
The "points system" set out at Attachment I would be embodied
in the Regulations.
The Minister would be empowered to prescribe,
from time to time, the points applicable to each component of the

"points system" and further, the required points a person must
attain to be eligible for the grant of entry (for the categories of
entry provided for) and the points at the threshold level which a
person must attain to avoid outright rejection of application.
S.18 DEPORTATION POWERS:
18.
REMOVAL OF DISCRETION
Presently there are separate decisions made about temporary
entry, change of status and deportation of 'illegals' i.e.,.

prohibited non-citizens.
These successive decisions in the process
can be exploited to create delays calculated to maximise the

applicant's chance of overturning a decision.
costly, as are the review processes.
The delays are
The decision to deport should
be made mandatory once the aggregated decisions (to grant

permission to stay - temporarily or permanently) - have been
refused and (if appealed) refused by the AAT.
The object is to
ensure that each applicant gets the benefit of one - but only one consideration of his or her circumstances; and that those
circumstances are not repeatedly canvassed.
Provision would need
to be made for further consideration of the person's circumstances

where those have changed substantially, for example, with the
substantial effluxion of time.
19.
The system would work as follows.
upon a person's application to

and the o
A decision would be made
(temporarily or permanently)
e all relevant
[168]
[21]
124
ATTACHMENT P
applications at that time to enable all decisions to be made.
Once
a person is finally refused permission to remain in Australia, they

would have 28 days to leave voluntarily; if they did not leave
within that period then they would be automatically liable to a
mandatory deportation order - an authorised officer would be
required to order that person's deportation.
During that 28 day
period, the person would have two choices (other than to leave
voluntarily):
firstly, he or she could seek review- initially
internal review, then review by the AAT.

20.
Once an application for review was filed, the 28 day period
would automatically cease to run, until the application was

determined; unless the decision was reversed, a new 28 day period
would commence running when the review decision was made (this
would apply equally to both internal and AAT Review).
Secondly,
the person could make a fresh application based upon a change in

circumstances:
only if the change in circumstances was relevant
and recognised under the relevant Regulations could the application

be granted.
That application would "stop the clock" running but
not in the same way as an application for review, where a fresh 28

day period would commence running upon the making of the review
decision ,
In the case of a "stay" application, on the basis of
changed circums.tances since the refusal, the 28 day period would be

stalled while the application was being considered.
If it were
rejected, then the 28 day period would then continue to run.

any case, once a 28 day period had expired and a
In
'mandatory'.
deportation order had been made, the person would no longer be

eligible for the
in Australia .
~ant
of an entry permit while he or she remained
Where a person - apprehended as a prohibited
non-citizen - refrains from making an application for a permit

within 2 days of apprehension then that person would be subject to
a mandatory deportation order. 13. This proposal should
significantly reduce the costs of decision-making and review.
It
would apply only to deportation decisions under s.18 of the

Migration Act 1958;
the discretion to deport under s.12 and s.13
would be retained.
ROLE OF OFFICE OF MINISTER AS DECISION MAKER
21.
Unlike most other jurisdictions, the Office of the Minister in
this Eortfolio ia involved in much decision making.
The Migration
Act 1958, confers on the Minister the discretion to make a number

of wide ranging decisions.
volume de
This is in contrast to comparable high

ea-x, Veterans
[169]
[22]
125
ATTACHMENT P
Affairs) where the Minister is not - or not to the same extent involved in case decision making.
22.
While only some of these decisions may be exposed to AAT
scrutiny, all are potentially subject to Federal Court scrutiny

which attract
advers~ ___
media
human interest content.
publicity because of the considerable
Federal Court (and AAT) challenges of
departmental decisions have been increasing steadily since 1982.

The result is more pronounced scrutiny of ministerial decisions.
There are a number of undesirable consequences of the Office of the
Minister being directly involved in the case decision-making
process.
23.
Cases subjected to court or tribunal scrutiny provide the
potential for the Minister to be called as a witness and to be

subjected to searching cross examination directed at exposing
possible deficiencies in the Minister's case knowledge and the
possibility of political expediency in the decision-making process.
24 .
Overturning of decisions by the judiciary may be seen as the
judicial and executive arms of government being in conflict with

one another. Moreover, as the Minister represents the highest level
in the administrative decision-making process, his/her decisions
may not be lightly reversed once scrutiny in the courts commences.
Accordingly, there is real potential for the Minister being
involved in a case that becomes a "cause celebre".
The Minister
could then be committed to a position which - after the event he/she considers ill-advised.
25.
Accordingly, it is recommended that decision making powers in
relation to visas, entry permits, deportations except in respect of

security grounds (s.13 and s.14), and the like be vested in the
Secretary to the Department rather than in the Minister, and that
the Act be amended accordingly.
However, decisions to determine a
person as a refugee or political asylee will remain respectively

with the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic
Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade.
26.
To ensure that the Office of the Minister retains power to
discharge political responsibilities in relation to the

administration of the Act, it should be amended to provide a power
to direct decision-makers as to the general policy to be applied,
in a
p~rticular
27.
Moreover the Minister should retain- and be seen to retain-
matter or in the administration of the Act.
ultimate authority in migration decisions.
Accordingly, a power to
override the AAT where the public interest would be served should
[170]
[23]
126
ATTACHMENT P
be provided for. I would expect that this power would only be used
in the most exceptional cases. Moreover, its exerci~e should be
subject to community and Parliamentary scrutiny. Accordingly, the
Minister should be obliged to notify all parties and the AAT of
his/her decision anq to table a Statement of Reasons in Parliament
within 15 sitting days of the decision.
RELEASE OF PROHIBITED NON-CITIZENS ON BONDS
28 . Under ss.38(7) and 39(7), prohibited non-citizens or deportees
may be released from custody by authorised officers. It is unclear
whether the power exists to release people on bonds or surety. A
person released from custody has little inducement to report or
surrender to the Department at a later date and a high proportion
of prohibited non-citizens not held in custody abscond. It is
unclear whether the Migration Act provides for enforceable
conditions to be applied to release from custody.
29. Although signed agreements to report to the Department
regularly and to notify changes of address, etc., are frequently
obtained, when these are breached they cannot be enforced.
Reservations have been expressed about existing powers to obtain
sureties in relation to release from custody under s.38 or s.39.
It is desira~le. tha~ there be a clear power to release on surety to
avoid possible detention of many prohibited non-citizens and
deportees - who would otherwise be released pending the resolution
of their case.
30. S.38 and s . 39 should therefore be amended to provide that
authorised officers may impose conditions (including securities
where appropriate), which may be attached to orders to release a
person from custody and that the conditions are enforceable. A
bond would be forfeited (in the same manner as bail) for breach of
conditions imposed upon a person's release and the defaulting
person could be taken into custody.
SEIZURE OF ASSETS OF DEBTORS
31. Many persons detained as prohibited non-citizens and those
deported from Australia have assets in Australia. Frequently, the
Commonwealth incurs considerable expenses in detaining and removing
prohibited non-citizens. After deportation, the only way the
Commonwealth can recover debts owed by the deportee for detention
and deportation costs is by litigation pursuant to s.21A(11) of the
- -Act, which is difficult.
32. S.21A allows an authorised officer, with or without the
consent of the deportee, to arrange for an airline ticket held by
CABINETIN-CONFIDENCE
[171]
[24]
127
ATTACHMENT P
the deportee to be applied towards the conveyance of the deportee.

However, s.21A limits recovery of detention and depo~tation cost~
to deportees (as defined in the Migration Act). In the case of
persons apprehended as prohibited non-citizens and placed in s.38
custody, no provisio.n presently exists for the recovery of the
costs incurred by the Commonwealth in such circumstances.
33. The Act should be amended to enable the Commonwealth to seize
the assets (cash, personal property, real estate, etc.,) of a
person who is liable under s.21A for costs incurred following
detention pursuant to s.38 or s.39 and persons who may seek to
accompany that person (by virtue of s . 19 ).
34. In order to implement this proposal, the Act will need to be
amended to provide the following powers to the Secretary:
(a) to identify and certify the costs recoverable under
sub-sections 21A(l) and 21A(7);
(b) to identify the property, including:
(i) examining the deportee under oath as to the property and
obliging him/her to answer questions about his/her property and
assets;
(ii) to certify that the property is the property of the person;
(c) to seize property; that is (i) in the case of personal property, to take possession of it;
(ii) in the case of real property, to register a caveat (or the
like) against the property, precluding its transfer;
(iii)in the case of bank (or other accounts), to order the accounts
"frozen";
(d) to make an orde~ that the property be sold (in the case of
real and personal property), or that the relevant financial
institutions pay the Commonwealth the amount owed it (in the case
of bank and other accounts). That power should be subject to an
obligation to give the deportee a defined period of time (perhaps
28 days) to pay the debt, before the property is sold;
(e) to appropriate the amount owing to the Commonwealth from the
proceeds of sale and to account to the deportee for the balance.
AMENDMENT OF GORS PROVISION (s6A(l)(b):
35. This is covered in Attachment G (para 17).
[172]
[25]
ATTACHMENT P
128
TRAVEL DOCUMENTS TO DEPORTEES AND PERSONS REFUSED ENTRY

36.
This is covered in Attachment L.
37.
The Department .of Administrative Services (DAS) supports the

detention centres.
In the light of the Block Efficiency Scrutiny's

38 .
Finance has no objection to the proposed strategy for
amendment of the Migration Act, with the exception of the review

system discussed under Attachment N.
39.
Finance supports the extension of the liability for an
Assurance of Support.
40.
P (o) for the Act to authorise the issue of letters consistent with
41.
The Attorney-General's Department notes that recommendation
(c) proposes the progressive structuring of the discretionary

criteria prescribed by regulations.
Recommendation (d) proposes
provision for the review of decisions by regulations .
While it
would be appropriate for the regulations to provide for review of

decisions made under the authority
o~
the regulations, the review
of desisions made under the Act should be provided by amendments to

the Act .
42.
The Attorney-General's Department opposes recommendation (n).
The proposal is to amend the Act to give the Minister the power to
[173]
[26]
ATTACHMENT P
129
override decisions of the AAT subject to the Minister tabling a

statement of reasons in Parliament.
The proposal
fo~
the Minister
to be able to override an AAT decision is inconsistent with the

concept of determinative review.
It makes the Minister an appeal
body from the AAT.

43.
The Department understands that there may be concern about the
AAT exercising determinative powers in circumstances where

important policy considerations are involved.
That concern can
readily be overcome in other ways eg. by:

(a)
inclusion in the legislation of the criter i a pursuant to which
the decisions are to be made;

(b)
statutory provisions for the Minister to make guidelines
(subject to parliamentary disallowance) which would bind the AAT ;

(c)
the making of Ministerial policy statements to which the AAT
would have regard;

(d)
conferring on the Minister a power to certify that a decision
was taken in the national interest, thereby removing a right of

appeal.
44.
PM&C does not support the proposal made in the Submission that
a decision by the Minister to override a decision of the AAT should

be subject to disallowance by the Parliament.
Such a proposal
would breach the principle of the separation of executive and

legislative power and would defeat the intention (expressed in
paragraph 19 of Attachment P of the Submission) that the Minister
should retain - and be seen to retain - ultimate authority in
migration decisions .
[174]
[27]

ATTACHMENT Q
130
IMMIGRATION RESEARCH AND INFORMATION
RECOMMENDATION
1.
I recommend that Cabinet
(a)
agree to the creation of a Bureau of Immigration Research in
March 1989 at a cosL of an extra $0.95m and 5 ASL in 1988/89,

$4.15m and 19 ASL in 1989/90 and $4.0m and 19 ASL in subsequent
years;
(b)
note that there will be savings if I decide to subsequently

(c)
note that I shall be seeking funds for a public information
campaign in the 1989/90 new policy context.

ARGUMENTATION
2.
CAAIP was highly critical of the lack of policy-oriented
research and statistical information and of the capacity to produce

it.
It also saw the subjectivity and emotiveness of the recurring
immigration debate as being partly fuelled by ignorance and the

Government's inability to provide timely information about the real
costs and benefits of immigration.
3.
It called for better consultation with the community and
public education program.

well-resourced Bureau of
4.
fo r~
It recommended the establishment of a

Immig~ation
Research.
In the course of my consultations with the public and in
briefing the media I have formed a strong view that CAAIP has
correctly identified a major gap in my Department's resources which
it is vital that we address.
We must combat ignorance and
misinformation and improve the climate in which immigration issues

are considered.
5.
The proposal has attracted almost universal support and I
intend to upgrade substantially the current limited research and

statistics resources in the Department through the creation of a
Bureau along the lines of those which function in other major areas
of Government concern.
It will sponsor significant commercial and
academic research in addition to undertaking some in-house studies.

6.
The proposed Bureau will have a major role in informing the
broad Australian community on all aspects of immigration ana will

undertake formal and informal consultations.
This will include
the Immigration Outlook Conferences proposed by CAAIP.
..
I would
also see it as playing an important part in the development of a

'
- --
public information campaign which I am foreshadowing to tackle the

widespread myths and misconceptions about immigration.
131
[175]
[28]
ATTACHMENT Q
7.
The work of the Bureau will also, of course, make an important
contribution in facilitating policy development elsew?ere in the
Department.
8.
The Bureau will be headed by a highly qualified specialist
whose personal standing should enhance the reputation the Bureau
should soon acquire.
9.
The additional cost to the Government of a Bureau in the
Department's Central Office with four SES officers and a total
staff of 41 (19 more than currently undertake this work) and a
sponsored research program of $1.5m in its first full year is
$2.95m, including once-only establishment costs.
The ongoing
requirement, including $2.0m for sponsored research, in subsequent
years is $3.1m.
10. If located elsewhere the need to duplicate some staff and
other resources would result in higher costs: $4.15m in its first
year and $4.0m in subsequent years.
11. In view of its responsibility for the co-ordination of
Government information activity, the Department of Administrative
Services is interested in the proposal to develop a Bureau of
Immigration Research which would have a significant and continuing
public information role and play a part in the development of the
proposed public information campaign. If the campaign proposal is
approved, the basic campaign strategy should come before the
Ministerial Committee on Government Information and Advertising at
the earliest possible stage with subsequent individual campaigns
brought before the Committee as required.
12. Finance does not support the creation of a Bureau of
Immigration Research and is also concerned at possible duplication
with other organisations.
[176]
[29]
ATTACHMENT R
132
RESOURCE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION
1.
I recommend that Cabinet note that:
(a)
the resource implications of the recommendations are dealt
with at each relevant _attachment;

(b)
the net additional cost of the recommendations (includ i ng
establishment costs) in 1989-90 is $20.0m and 144.5 ASL, $17.7m

(182.6 ASL) in 1990-91, and $6.3m (170.6 ASL) in 1991-92;
(c)
the total net savings of the package in 1989-90 dollar terms
are $309m with the English test and $92m without the Engl i sh test
(d)
and
in establishing the resources platform from which the response
to CAAIP is to be delivered, a $4 . 6m shortfall in revenue from

migration applications is expected in 1988-89 because of a reduced
application rate .
(e)
further submissions arising directly out of Cabinet's

I am now proposing .
2.
Figure 1 summarises the costs and savings to the Commonwealth
arising from the recommendations.
It does not seek to establish
the potential overall impact of CAAIP given that further decisions

are proposed to be taken downstream eg. detention centres.
F i gure
2 dissects those costs by agency.

3.
CAAIP did not address in any detail the resource implications
of its recommendations.
Castings of specific items it ident.ified
were estimated to require additional resources for DILGEA of $11m

in 1988-89, $8m in 1989-90 and $9m in 1990-91.
It considered that
its recommendations should be substantially implemented through the

re-allocation of existing resources or through the i ntroduct i on or
extension of user-pays arrangements.
4.
The CAAIP approach raises a number of problems.
(a) The castings it identified were based on an arbitrary listing

of recommendations which it considered should be earmarked for
additional resources .
(b)
It had little knowledge of what the overall resource impact of
its recommendations would be.

(c)It did not consider the costs that other agencies might face.
(d)
Cost recovery is a principle that has been embraced by DILGEA,

~
- --
both for broad reasons of equity and as a means of marshalling the

use of scarce resources, and largely implemented.
the
budgeCABiNeEf~IN~ecoi\{FIDrEcN'Cv
In this regard,
estimated at 46% of
[177]
[30]
ATTACHMENT R
133
DILGEA's expenditure in 1988-89 (after making allowance for

attribution of departure tax receipts following the
the immigration clearance fee).
~bolition
of
This is the fourth highest level
of portfolio cost recovery and is matched only by two industry

portfolios (Primary ;ndustries and Energy and Transport and
Communications) and Finance (reflecting mainly superannuation
arrangements).
Such a recovery level is even more remarkable when
it is considered that over a third of portfolio expenditures is

accounted for by Adult Migrant Education Program (AMEP) and
Grants-in-Aid, for which no charging takes place .
(e)
Extension of the charging arrangements is therefore, in
practice, very limited unless introduced within the AMEP.
In
cutting the level of growth in the AMEP in the 1988-89 Budget,

Cabinet recognised that some charging may need to be introduced to
extend the AMEP dollar.
This remains a sensitive issue and the
level of AMEP cost recovery is likely to remain low (as with other
educational income and maintenance activities).
(f)
While re-allocating resources is a reasonable principle to
apply when transferring functions, it has only limited relevance

when activities are being extended or new activities are required.
5.
In establishing the resource base from which the CAAIP
recommendations were to be delivered, it was first necessary to

consider the effects of migration application resource shortfalls
arising from a reduced application rate.
6.
By way of background, the Government has in the past linked
the level of increased migrant intakes to post-arrival resource

levels to allow standards of service delivery to be maintained.
In
1988-89, such maintenance of standards and overseas computer and

management requirements were to be offset by increased revenue from
increasing the average fee for migration applications.
In the
event, the number of applications for migration has decreased

dramatically as a result of the Asian migration debate and the
dis-incentive effect of increasing the selection threshold from 70
to 80 points from February 1988 in the Independent and Concessional
category.
This would have resulted in a loss of revenue estimated
at $12m under the previous two-tier fee structure ($60 on

application, $165 on processing indexed to CPI).
recens
restruct~r~ng
However, the
of the migration application fee into a single
fee of $200 still is expected to generate additional revenue of

$7.4m, the level of funds required to offset the cost of the
increaseCXsiNmET:IN~ croNFIDENCE
CAB I ET-1
-CONFIDENCE
134
[178]
[31]
ATTACHMENT R
7.
Noting Cabinet's requirement that any bids for additional
resources in 1989-90 are to be brought forward in the new policy

context (with offsetting savings), PM&C considers that a number of
the elements of the resource requirements in the Submission can be
held over .
Those elements requ i ring more immediate decision on
resourcing (eg. a new selection system) should be settled with the

Minister for Finance.
8.
Finance considers that, consistent with CM 11631 and CM 12033,
resource questions which are not urgent and unavoidable should be

deferred for consideration in the 1989-90 new policy context, with
minor new policy proposals being taken up in the portfolio targets
context.
In those cases where Ministers agree that resource
decisions cannot await the 1989-90 Budget context, Finance

considers that they should be settled bilaterally with the Minister
for Finance against the requirement of CM 11631 for the
identification of offsetting portfolio savings.
9.
Finance is concerned, however, that the Submission seeks
recognition of a $4.6m shortfall in the revenue from migration

applications.
It had previously been agreed between the Ministers
that any shortfall in this revenue, which was earmarked as

offsetting the expansion of the 1988-89 migration program, would be
found from alternative sources.
[179]
[32]
135
ATrAOlMENl' R
I I
I '
I >
CAAIP - NEl' CC6T OF RRXMMENDATIOOS (a)
I I
~=-===========================================================a-=a=======================~================================== ::
1988;89
ASL
Srn
1989;90
ASL
Srn
1990/91
ASL
Srn
11
1991/92
ASL
Sm
''
1'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------::
RE.VIE.W
0.0
0.00
21.3
2.14
65.9
4.81
65.9
4.81
1 1
1 '
''1
Bl\IJ\NCE CF Fl\1-IILY
6.2
1.17
13.2
- 6.28
16.8
-18.41
16.8
-25.33
ASSIJRAOCE CF SUPPORT EJITENDED TO U.B .
0.0
0.00
4.3
-1.23
7.8
-5.07
7.8
- 7 77
DEI'ENriON CENl'RE
0. 0
0.00
0.0
0.59
0.0
0.05
0.0
0.05
SEIZURE CF ASSETS
0.0
-0.10
0.0
-0.20
0.0
-0.20
0.0
-0.20
4.8
0.95
19.0
4.15
19.0
4.00
19.0
4 . 00
33.0
3.56
57.7
7.45
44.2
5.43
32.2
4. 62
5.0
0 . 24
20.0
1.14
20.0
0.98
20.0
0 . 98
1.5
0.15
9.0
0. 72
9.0
0.56
9.0
0.56
BUREAU OF
IHMI~ION
RESEAROl
MANAGEMENl' OF NE.W SELECI'ION SYSTrn
RE.VISED <DRS PROCEDURES
'' '
'
------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- --------------------------------7.86

50.4
5.97
144.5
8.47
182.6
170.6
-18.28
'------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------- ---------------- -----------------
1
1
1
: SUB - TOrAL
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
AMEP AND U.B. - IHPACT OF INCREASED EXTENDED

FAMILY INTAKE
Without English Test
0.0
0.15
0.0
0.0
11.51
0.0
25.55
24 . 55
:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- ~
50.4
6.12
144.5
19.99
182.6
17.69
170.6
6. 27
:: '!OrAL CC6TS (WITHCXJr EN>LISH TEST)
I I
II
II
11
AMEP - IMPACT OF INOU:ASED EXrENDED FAMILY

INIAKE
With English Test
o.oo
0.0
0 .0
1.17
0. 0
2.33
0.0
II
II
''
''
2. 33 ! :
II
>I
''-------------------------------------------------
-----------------: :
11
:: '!OrAL CC6TS (WITH ENGLISH TEST)
50.4
5.97
144.5
9.65
182.6
-5.53
170.6
NET RUSENT VALUE WI'IH EN>LISH TEST :

NET PRESENT VALUE WI'IHOJT EN>LISH TEST
BIJl' WI'IH BALANCE CJF FAMILY
(a) Based on oostings at cu=ent (1988/89) prices. Costs;savings are to the Camornoeal.th and rot just DII.GEA.
I
I
I I
1 1
CUiULATIVE rosTS FRCH Am IOCWDIN:> 1989/90
:--------------------------------------------------
------------------------: :
3 YEARS
ASL
5 YEARS
SH
ASL
10 YEARS
SH
II
II
II
I
I
----------------
I
I
497 . 8
WITH ENGLISH TEST
-11.82
829.8
-89 . 49
1659.9
-295.21 :
I
I
WlnKX1l' ENGLISH TEST
Bur WITH BALANCE OF FAMILY
497.8
43.95
829.8
10.72
1659.9
-83.91
-15.94!!
-309 . 31
-91.97
[180]
[33]
CABINET- IN -CONFIDENCE
136
CAAIP - CCST <F REXXl1MENDATI01'5 - BY AGENCY
1989;90
1988/89
OPl'IOO
ASL
sm
ASL
1990;91
$m
ASL
ASL
$m
-------------------------------------------------------------------"1
21.3
2.14
65.9
4.81
65.9
4.81 :I
RE.VIEW
- DILGEA
- AKX
- ATIOONEY-GENERAL ' S
15.5
4.4
1.4
0.94
0.88
0.32
44.1
11.9
9. 8
2.27"
2.03
0.52
44.1
11.9
9.8
2.272.03
0.52
6.2
1.17
13.2
-6.28
16.8
-18.41
16.8
- 25.33
5.7
5.7
0. 0
0.37
0.37
0.00
11.3
11.3
0.0
11.3
11.3
o. 74
0.9
0.0
0.82
0.13
-0.06
- DHCS
- AAT
(Review)
- A-G' s (Review)
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.09
0.00
0 . 00
2.3
0.5
6.1
1.9
1.04
0.74
0.68
-0.39
0.52
0.26
-11.98
2.06
-10.75
0.34
0.10
11.3
11.3
0.0
0.5
0 .78
0 . 82
0.35
-0.39
0.52
0.26
-4.56
0.52
- 4.15
0.28
0.06
- DILGEA
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.59
o.o
0.0
-0.10
0.0
-0.20
0.0
0.00
4.3
33.0
3.56
33.0
29.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
3.56
2.33
1.23
BALANCE OF FAMILY
- DILGEA
lldmin.
. Review (1)
(3)
- DAS
- oss
6.1
1.9
0.05
0.0
0. 05
0.0
-0.20
0.0
- 0.20
-1.23
7.8
-5.07
7.8
-7.77
57 . 7
7.45
44.2
5.43
32.2
4.62
55.0
37.0
18.0
2.7
4.99
3.11
1.88
1.62
0.84
41.5
34.0
7.5
2.7
2.97
2.66
0.30
1.62
0.84
29.5
22.0
7 .5
2.7
2.16
1.86
0.30
1.62
0.84
-1.7
. Assurance of supp:::>rt ( 2)
o.o
1.04
0.68
-0.39
0.52
0.26
- 14.26
3.16
-16.48
0.34
0.10
AMEP
- DFAT
I I
II
II
II
II
1991/ 92
Sm
0.9
-3 . 4
0.9
-3.4
SEIZURE OF ASSEI'S
- DII.GFA
ASSURANCE OF SUPPCRT EXTENDED TO U.B .

- DSS
- DILGEA
lldmin.
Ca!q;luter up:rrade
- DFAT (4)
- DAS
o.oo
o.oo
RE.VISED <rRS PROCEDURES
I
I
I
5.0
- DILGEA
0. 24
20.0
1.14
20.0
0.98
20.0
0.98
:I
II
II
PRINCIPAL ADITISER REFUiEES AND IlORS ENHANCEMENl'
II
- DIIJ3EA
II
I
I
1.5
0.15
9.0
o. 72
9.0
0.56
9.0
0.56
4. 8
0.95
19 . 0
4 . 15
19.0
4 . 00
19.0
4.00
Bt.IU:AIJ CF Il+UGRATICN RESEARCH

- DIIJ3EA
0 . 15
- AMEP - IMPACt' OF lliCREASED CDOCE5SICNl\L INrAKE

- DILGEA
Increased c:x:mcessional intake

Savings fran balance of family
Savings fran reduction in Independent Cat.
- oss
0.06
0.06
.Additional U.B. costs

. Offsetting U.B. fran AMEP Living All'ces
11.51
25 . 55
24.55
6.77
9.27
-1.60
-0.90
2.91
3.54
- 0.63
13.54
18.54
-3.21
-1.80
8.00
9.25
-1.25
13.54
18.54
-3.21
- 1.80
6.87
8.12
-1.25
1.83
4.02
4.15
- DHCS
0.09
.Addi. tional health costs
TOrAL NE1' CCS'IS

- DIIJ3EA
- AKX
- AT:OCRNElL' GENERAL'S
- DFAT
- DAS
- SOCIAL SEOJRITY
-
HEALn{
49.9
0. 0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
129.8
6.7
1.9
3.6
0.0
2.6
0.0
19.88
1.16
0.38
2.14
1.10
-2.35
-2.32
144.9
18.0
11.7
3. 6
25.19
2.37
0.62
2.14
o.o
5.17
0.00
0.00
0.82
0.13
0. 00
0.00
4.4
0.0
-6.99
-6.73
50.4
6.12
144.5
19.99
182 . 6
17.69
( 1) Assurces agreerent to re=mnended Review m:xlel

(2) Assurces that assurance of suptDrt will l::e extended to U.B.
(3) Represents additional 9.9 LES in a full year.
(4) Represents additional 30
us
o.o
ET-1N-CON FIDENCE
1.10
132 . 9
18.0
11.7
3.6
0.0
4.4
o.o
24.39
2. 37
0 . 62
2.14
1.10
- 12.01
-12.33
170.6
6.27
137
[181]
[34]
ATTACHMENT S
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
STATEMENT TO PARLIAMENT (Attachment A)

(a)
agree to my making a Statement to Parliament along the lines
of Attachment A;
PUBLIC REACTION TO THE COMMITTEE TO ADVISE ON AUSTRALIA'S
IMMIGRATION POLICIES (Attachment C)
(b)
note the summary of public reaction to CAAIP at Attachment C;
MATRIX OF RECOMMENDATIONS (Attachment D)

(c)
(i)
note the Inter-Departmental Committee conclusions on the

Matrix of recommendations at Attachment D; and
(ii) agree with the Government response which appears in the

Matrix;
IMMIGRATION OBJECTIVES (Attachment E)
(d)
note the discussion of immigration objectives at Attachment E;
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR IMMIGRATION POLICIES (Attachment F)

(e)
endorse the broad approach enunciated in CAAIP's 10 principles
for immigration policy but with the minor amendments outlined in

paragraph 5 of Attachment F;
PROGRAM SIZE AND COMPOSITION (Attachment G)
(f)
(i)
agree~ that: .
the Family Migration ceiling be set at 69,000 for
1989/90;
(ii) the Economic Migration ceiling be set at 56,000 for 1989/90;
(iii)the Humanitarian Migration ceiling be set at 14,000
including a 1,500 contingency reserve for 1989/90;
(iv) the Special Migration Category be allocated an indicative
(v)
the Self-Supporting Retiree sub-category be abolished;
(vi) the total program for 1989/90 as derived from the component
streams be 140,000;
(vii)Grant of Resident Status (GORS) be retained and where
analogous with Migrant Entry categories the identical criteria for
(viii)each GORS category be attributed to the appropriate Migrant
(ix)
an additional 5 ASL ($0.2m) in 1988/89, 20 ASL ($1.1m) in
1989/92 and 20
~S~
thereafter (for each of 1990/91 and 1991/92 at
$1.0m per annum) be allocated to GORS processing to ensure that the

integrity in selection is maintained;
[182]
[35]
ATTACHMENT S
138
ECONOMIC MIGRATION (Attachment H)

(g) agree that:
(i) an Economic Migration program level be set each year in the
light of changing needs of the economy;
(ii) Economic Migration be divided into two streams: an
with a points test;
(iii)the targeted migration stream comprise four categories:
Tripartite Negotiated Arrangements; Individual Employer
Nominations; Business Migration and Special Skills Migration;
(iv) a Council be established with responsibility for overseas
be jointly developed ~y Department of Employment, Education and
Training and Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic
Affairs; and
(v) the present Occupational Shares System (OSS) be included as

part of the Independent Migration category in the broad-based
labour force enhancement stream;
POINTS TEST (Attachment I)
(h) agree that:
(i) a points test be differentially applied to Extended Family and
Independent Migration as separate streams to address the competing
social and economic objectives of the categories;
(ii) the points test comprise the following factors: Employ~bility
with skill, age and language as sub-factors; Relationship;
Citizenship; Settlement; Location, as detailed at Figure 1,
Attachment I;
(iii)the factor of Employability be used in assessing Independent
migrants and factors of Employability (minus language),
Relationship, Citizenship, Settlement and Location be used in
(iv) a floating pass mark be used to manage the points tested
component of the program; and
(iv) note that a more sophisticated and complex selection system
ASL
$M
..
1988-89 . . . - -1989-90
33
3.6
58
7.4
1990-91
44
5.4
1991-92
32
4.6
[183]
[36]
139
ATTACHMENT S
This requirement will be reduced by $3.2m per annum from 1990-91 if

my recommendations on balance of family are accepted;
RECOGNITION OF OVERSEAS QUALIFICATIONS (Attachment J)
( i)
agree:
(i)
to note the useful contribution of the work of the National

(ii) that this model, together with other related inquiries into
the issue should be referred to a working party of the Structural
Adjustment Committee for further consideration by early 1989; and
(iii)that this working party should examine overseas skil ls i n the
context of skill accreditation and qualification recognition more
generally in Australia;
FAMILY MIGRATION (Attachment K)
( j)
agree:
(i)
that parents be processed in the Family Migration category
only where the balance of their children are resident in Australia

(ie. that parents must have more children permanently resident in
Australia than in any single country or at least an equal number
permanently resident in Australia as overseas);
(ii) that this requirement would count all children of
~he
parent
and his/her spouse irrespective of degree of economic or social

dependence;
(iii)that policy on Assurances of Support be tightened such that
Assurances of Support extend to the payment of Unemployment
family criterion and are enforced for five years; and
(iv)to note that these changes will realise net savings of $6.3m in
1989-90, rising to $25.3m in 1991-92, and require an additional 6 . 2
ASL in 1988-89, rising to 16 . 8 ASL in 1990-91;
REFUGEE AND HUMANITARIAN ENTRY (Attachment L)
(k)
agree :
(i)
to maintain the Refugee/Special Humanitarian Entry Program

(ii)
to reject involvement by domestic community agencies in

(iii) that the Government develop an emergency rescue program to
provid! speedy
~c~eptance
of refugees and people still in their own
country who are confronting immediate persecution or life

[184]
[37]
140
(iv)
ATTACHMENT S
to further consider a limited utilisation of the overseas
affiliations of church organisations which may be
we~l
placed

(v)
to note that, however, there are a number of sensitivities

(vi)
to retain and enhance present Determination of Refugee Status
(DORS) procedures.
To this end, an additional 1 ASL ($53,470) and

(vii) to retain the legislative provision to halt refugee claimants
at the frontier and not to admit -them to Australia until their
claims to refugee status are decided coupled with an enhancement o f
frontier processing procedures;
(viii) to the establishment of a senior officer (SES Level 3) in
international migration matters, requiring additional resources of
0.5 ASL and $0.05m in 1988-89, 1 ASL and $0.09m in 1989-90 and
(ix) to the drafting of letters that would be issued by DILGEA
to be deported.
These letters would be issued in a form consistent
with Annex 9 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944

(the Chicago Convention);
SETTLEMENT (Attachment M)
(l)
agree that:
(i)
DILGEA concentrate its settlement programs on the needs~based

outcom~es;
(ii) in accordance with this aim, DILGEA re-focus its settlement

activities, paying particular attention to targeting its programs
t.ed with the
[185]
[38]
ATTACHMENT S
141
circumstances of their migration; clarification of DILGEA's

strategic role in settlement through phasing out
dup~ications
with
other agencies having regard to their access and equity

commitments; and the appropriateness of cost recovery measures for
its programs;
ACCOUNTABLE DECISION MAKING (Attachment N)
(m)
agree to:
(i)
a two-tier system of review involving statutory first-tier

the Administrative Appeals Tribunal;
(ii) to a net additional $2.1m and 21.3 ASL in 1989-90, rising to
$4.8m and 65.9 ASL in 1990-91 for the implementation of the system;
(iii)note that castings are based on the assumptions at Figure 1 to
Attachment N, which build on AAT experience in other jurisdictions
and the possible need for revision if there is any significant
departure from the assumptions; and
(iv) to note that the Minister for Justice is bringing forward
jointly with me a separate submission on access to legal aid which
will canvass, inter-alia, the limitation of legal aid to seek
administrative or judicial review of decisions on immigration
status to citizens and
perm~nent
residents of Australia;
ENFORCEMENT (Attachment 0)
(n)
agree to:
(i)
character;
(ii) provide $200,000 for a consultancy project on options for
upgrading detention facilities; and
(iii)provide $389,000 in 1989-90, $45,000 in 1990 - 91 and $45,000 in
1991-92 for Detention Centre improvements;
MIGRATION ACT AMENDMENTS (Attachment P)
(o)
agree to amend the Migration Act 1958 to:
(i)
provide for a two tier review system:
internal review
. followed by AAT review;

(ii) allow for legislatively based, internal review within my
Department;
(iii)empower
t~e
Governor-General to make regulations setting up

procedures of the
- - first tier;
~
(iv) empower the Governor-General to make regulations prescribing

[186]
[39]
142
ATTACHMENT S

reconunendatory;
(v)
exclude from AAT review security decisions . and security

(vi) empower the Minister to issue conclusive certificates
(vii)provide that all prescribed decisions are reviewable
automatically by the AAT only after determination by the first tier
(viii)insert a provision where both tiers of review are urged and
Act (that are in dispute between the parties to the review) by
requ~r~ng
the applicants to make any or all additional applications

tier;
(ix)allow for regulations to be made specifying:
policy criteria - entitlements/restrictions for each category;
decisions, which are presently made under statutory
regulations (these discretions would cease to have effect - _by
proclamation- to coincide with the making of regulations);
the factors applicable to categories _subject to "points
testing" and to allow the Minister to prescribe the points
applica~le
to each factor in the points system and the qualifying
score (for each "points tested" category referred to in the

Regulations) for eligibility for entry and to vary both by notice
in the Gazette;
charge and recovery of fees in respect of review for internal
review and to remit, refund or waive such fees;
(x)
allow the Minister by notice in the Gazette to prescribe the

""
- -
(xi) remove the discretion to deport under s . 18 and provide for

automatic departure - failing which it would be mandatory to order
deportation where permits have been denied or not sought .
Once a
[187]
[40]
143
~:)
ATTACHMENT S

(xii)provide that the Secretary rather than the Minister is the
security/defence gro~nds) with the Secretary being empowered to
(xiii)empower the Minister to give decision-makers directions as to
(xiv)empower the Minister to substitute his/her decision for that
(xv) allow for release from custody under s.38 and s.39 on
conditions imposed by authorised officers. Conditions would
(xvi)allow for seizure (and sale) of property of persons
resulting form the detention/deportation;
(xvii)require applicants for GORS under s.6A(1)(b) to hold valid
(xviii)provide for the issue of letters consistent with Annex 9 to
(xix)provide that the liability for an Assurance of Support
(xx) allow the Governor General to make regulations concerning the
management of detention centres and to regulate the rights of
Officers); and
(xxi)provide for the amendments to come into force on a date to be
proclaimed;
IMMIGRATION RESEARCH AND INFORMATION (Attachment Q)
(p) agree:
(i) to the creation of a Bureau of Immigration Research in March
1989 at a cost of an extra $0.95m and 5 ASL in 1988/89, $4.15m and
- - -19 ASL in 1989/90 and $4.0m and 19 ASL in subsequent years;
(ii) note that there will be savings if I decide to subsequently
..
144
[188]
[41]
ATTACHMENT S
(iii)note that I shall be seeking funds for a public informat i on

campaign in the 1989/90 new policy context;
RESOURCE SUMMARY (Attachment R)
(q)
note that:
(i)
the resource implications of the recommendations are dealt

(ii) the net additional cost of the recommendations (includ i ng
establishment costs) in 1989-90 is $20.0m and 144.5 ASL, $17.7m
(182.6 ASL) in 1990-91, and $6.3m (170.6 ASL) in 1991-92;
(iii) the total net savings of the package in 1989-90 dollar terms
(iv) note that, in establishing the resources platform from wh i ch
the response to CAAIP is to be delivered, a $4.6m shortfall in
revenue from migration applications is expected in 1988-89 because
of a reduced application rate; and
(v)
further submis?ions arising directly out of Cabinet's

I am now proposing;
VIEWS OF CAUCus COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND
ETHNIC AFFAIRS (Attachment T)
(r)
note the views expressed at Attachment T.
\..._...
[189]
[42]
CABINET.. IN-CONFIDENCE
145
ATTACHMENT T
VIEWS OF CAUCUS COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND

ETHNIC AFFAIRS
1.
I recommend that Cabinet note the views expressed in this
Attachment.
[190]
[43]
146
PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA
GOVERNMENT CAUCUS COMMITIEES SECRETARIAT
ATTACHMENT T
PARLIAMENT HOUSE
CANBERRA. A.C.T. 2600
-TEL 73 3722
23 November 1988
CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Cabinet Minister,

You would be ' aware that the Caucus Immigration, Local Government
and Ethnic Affairs Committee has been meeting in many sessions
since the Fitzgerald Report was released, to try and finalise its
response to the Fitzgerald recommendations. The Committee met
with a number of groups and received a range of submissions from
others.
The Committee has worked closely with Ministers Holding and Ray
in attempting to come to an agreed position.
The Committee is in strong agreement with the Minister and the
Prime Minister on the question of continuing support for
multiculturalism.
The Committee is also strongly supportive of the idea of dividing
the concessional and independent category <and the proposed
Fitsgerald open category>, into two streams, one concerned with
family reunion and one concerned with independent skills
migration.
However, there are some key issues about which the Committee
strongly disagrees with Minister Ray and in one instance, is
itself substantially divided.
I believe that it is yery i mpor t a n t for the Cabinet to take into
account the argument of the Committee in making its final
deliberations on the outstanding contentious issues. These are
as follows :
TH E DI VI S I ON - o F THE CAT EGOR I ES
The Committee at its meeting on 13 October 1988, decided on the
following categories:
Refugee and Special Humanitarian
Economic Category, including Business Migration, Employer
Nomination Scheme, OSS, independent skills (this last to be
subject to a points system).
Immediate Family Reunion: This is demand driven and would
include spouse, non-dependent children and elderly parents.
CABINET-IN-CON IDENCE
[191]
[44]
147
ATTACHMENT T
Extended Family Reunion: Brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces.
This would be subject to a points system which is different from
the points for independent skills migrants.
Under the Minister's proposal, the immediate family and extended
family category would be made into one and the total numbers
would be determined on the basis of demand in the immediate
family category.
Although the Committee agrees with the Minister in the division
into two streams and in the provision of two separate points
systems, we do not agree that in the family stream the total
number under immediate family reunion should be allowed to reduce
the numbers coming in extended family reunion <brothers, sisters,
nephews and nieces).
For this reason immediate family category
should be separate from the extended family category.
We believe that for the following reasons, the merging of the two
categories should not be adopted:
It would mean that the numbers in the extended family reunion
could not be guaranteed for any particular year and could in
fact be substantially reduced if there was an increased
demand in immediate family. This would also be the case if
change of status applicants were included in this category.
Because extended family migration is by far the most
important category from a political point of view, it would
be a dangerous situation to heavily reduce the number in this
category . At the very least we should be in a position to
guarantee a minimum number in that grouping. This requires
that it be listed as a separate category. This also makes
sense when we consider that it will be subject to a separate
points system.
It could be argued that a blow out might occur in the
immediate family category which would affect the total
numbers. While this might be a possibility, we do not
believe that we can deal with this problem by reducing beyond a certain minimum - the numbers under the extended
family category .
THE RE LATI VE WEI GHTI NG$ OF THE CATEGORI ES
At its meeting on Thursday, 10 November 1988, the Committee,
after many deliberations, considered the composition of the
program under the new categories:
[192]
[45]
148
ATTACHHENT T
COMPARATIVE TABLE OF PROPOSALS BEFORE IMMIGRATION COMMITTEE RE
COMPOSITION OF PROGRAM
l987t:aa
BAY
;eRQ;eQSAL ;eROGRAM
THEQ:eHANQI.lS
;eRQ;eQSAL
Extended Family
<Applied Ove~seas>
25,000
39,000
34,000
Change of Status
<Mostly Immediate Family>
15,000
11,000
15,000
Independent Skills
<Applied Overseas>
29,000
16,000
20,000
Independent Skills
<Change of Status>
1,000
2,000
est.
1,000
70,000
68,500
70,000
TOTAL
ALSQ
Estimated for all three programs in future:
*
*
*
IMMEDIATE FAMILY REUNION
35,000
EMPLOYER NOMINATION & OCCUPATIONAL SKILLS

18,000
BUSINESS MIGRATION PROGRAM

= 12,000
RATIOS QF EXTENDED FAMILY REUNIQN YIS-A-VIS INOEPENDENT SKILLS

<WITHQUT CHANGE OF STATUS>
INDEPENDENT
SKILLS
EXTENDED
FAMILY
1987/88
29.1
70.9
RAY
53.7
46.29
THEOPHANOUS
37.1
62.9
[193]
[46]

149
ATTACHMENT T
RATIOS OF EXTENDED FAMILY REUNION VIS-A-VIS INDEPENDENT SKILLS

<NITti CHANGE OF STATUS)
EXTENDED
FAMILY &
CHANGE OF
STATUS
<MOSTLY
IMMEDIATE
FAMILY>
INDEPENDENT
SKILLS &
CHANGE OF
STATUS (SKILLS>
1987/88
73.7
26.3
THEOPHANOUS
70.00
30.00
RAY
57.14
42.86
Mr Lewis Kent moved:

That the Committee request that the family reunion
component of the new immigration program be kept at
least at the 1987/88 level in terms of percentage and
total numbers.
This motion was not supported.
The Committee then split evenly between the proposals of the
Minister and the Chairman in relation to the total numbers under
extended family reunion and independent skills.
I believe that any reduction below 34,000 in the extended family
reunion program for the next year would result in an extremely
tough points system for family immigration.
The 34,000 already represents a 5,000 reduction in the 1987/88
figure.
To go beyond this would in my view, be politically
unacceptable and create very substantial problems for the
Government in the community and especially among traditional
Labor supporting groups.
It would be seen as an emasculation of
the family reunion program and has the potential danger of
creating a mass response against the Government from the ethnic
communities.
I do not believe we should proceed in this way.
There are many other arguments as to why we do not need to reduce
family reunion beyond this point, including the fact that many
migrants coming under the family program are themselves educated
and skilled.
Furthermore, I believe, that to increase the independent skills
program from 16,000 to 20,000 is sufficient for our economic
needs. We should also remember that the other economic
categories <business migration, ENS and OSS>, would also be
substantially increased.
[194]
[47]
150
ATTACHMENT T
THE NEW REVIEW SYSTEM

The Minister has proposed a new two-stage review system
consisting of the following:
first, an internal review by the
Department; and second, appeals to the AAT. The independent
Immigration Review Panels would be phased out.
The Committee has rejected this approach and passed the following
motion:
That an external review panel process be retained with
the introduction of regulations to ensure uniformity in
application between the States.
That the second tier would involve references to the
AAT.
The Committee is concerned that the Minister's proposed system
would involve vesting excessive powers in the Department.
Although the Committee perceives a problem of uniformity in the
practice of the current immigration review panels, it believes
this will be resolved by better regulations governing that
process. To give to the Department the major responsibility for
reviews is likely to be perceived by many as a denial of their
rights for an independent judgement.
The Minister's proposal would also substantially increase the
burden on the AAT and, because this is a legal process,
substantially increase the cost of legal aid. The committee
believes that it would be better to strengthen and streamline the
review panels and to have fewer submissions to the AAT.
MINISTERIAL DISCRETION
The Minister has proposed to severely curtail existing
ministerial discretion. Under his proposals, the Minister would
exercise his discretion only in a small number of cases and ~ when
this is done, he would be accountable to the Parliament through
the tabling of parliamentary regulations referring to the details
of the cases which have been dealt with. These regulations would
be subject to disallowance by the Parliament.
In the Committee's discussions, many arguments were put against
the Minister's proposals.
In particular, it was felt that:
<i>
The Minister needed to retain his discretionary powers

because there were many cases when humanitarian
considerations. outweighed the points given.
(ii>
To reduce ministerial discretion would be in fact to

increase the discretion given to the Department and - key
departmental officers.
<iii>
To reduce ministerial discretion in this way would be

virtually to deprive Federal MPs of their capacity to
.. appeal ~9 __the Minister in irnmigra tion cases.
151
ATTACHMENT T
(iv> The assumption that a totally objective provess would

be achieved by reducing ministerial discretion in this
way, was mistaken.
People who had access to the
Department would be able to push cases through, while
Federal MPs would be unable to put special pleas on
behalf of their constituents.
(v)
It would be inappropriate and impractical in many

cases for the Minister to publicly list the reasons for
the exercise of the discretion in Parliament, as is
proposed.
In many cases the reasons are of such
a nature that they should remain confidential.
The following motion was carried by the Committee:

That ministerial discretion be retained and be dealt
with on a confidential basis.
CRITERIA FOR THE NEW POINTS SYSTEMS

Following extensive discussion of the points systems
suggested by the National Population Council, the
recommendations by the Minister and the recommendations of
the Chairman, the Committee concluded as follows:
The Committee made no determination in relation to the
Independent Skills Sub-Category and decided to leave this
issue to the Minister.
The Committee was, however, concerned about the structure of
the Extended Family <Kinship> Sub-Category. Following a
motion moved by Rick Charlesworth and seconded by Carolyn
Jakobsen, the Committee agreed to retain the points
structure as recommended by the Minister with respect to the
age factor, relationship points and sponsorship.points.
The Committee also agreed that the language skills factor
should be dropped from the Family Sub-Category as
recommended by the Minister. However, in relation to the
skill factor, the Committee was of the view that there
should be a different points structure to that proposed by
the National Population Council and the Minister, as
follows:
[195]
[48]
[196]
[49]
152
ATTACHMENT T
ASCO occupations requiring:

Degree/trade cert <recognised), with sound
continuous relevant experience, on DEET
shortage list
45
Degree/trade cert <recognised>, with sound

continuous relevant experience
35
Degree/trade cert <recognised>, without experience
30
Diploma <recognised>, with sound and

continuous relevant experience
35
Diploma (recognised>, without experience
30
Degree/diploma/trade cert <recognised overseas and

requiring only minor upgrading, feasible in Australia>,
with sound, continuous relevant experience
25
Degree/diploma/trade cert <recognised overseas and
requiring only minor upgrading, feasible in Australia>,
without experience
25
Other post secondary school quals or equivalent
experience
20
Secondary school completion
15
To Year 9 high school
10
Completed primary school
Less than primary school completion
The reasons for adopting this points structure is to ensure that

the factors, age, relationship and sponsorship can play a
significant role in the selection process for the Extended Family

<kinship> Category.
Under the National Population Council proposal, a person could
gain 70 points for degree/trade certificate <recognised>, with
sound, continuous, relevant experience. By giving such a large
emphasis on qualifications of this kind and a small emphasis,
namely 10 points for relationship and 10 points for sponsorship,
we would not give sufficient weighting to the family connection.
The Committee's view is that there should be more balance between
the various criteria.
Secondly, the maximum points for age would be 25 in the most
optimum 18-24 year group, with only 5 points for anyone over 40
years, and zero for anyone over 45 years.
In this situation a
person could receive up to 75 points for skill and pass through
the system even after they receive zero points for age. The
relative weighting of the age versus skill factor is, therefore,
-also unsatisfactory within the context of the family reunion
program.
153
ATTACHMENT T
For these and other reasons, the Committee believes that

this suggested system for skills and education, provides a
better balance within the context of the Family Reunion
<Kinship) Sub-Category; - The Committee believes that there
would be no adopting this scheme. They do, however, believe
that there could be a significant improvement in the
international distribution of the source countries for the
program.
In this regard the Committee added the following
qualification to its recommendation:
That this model be run through the computer and if
the proportions show an unacceptable distortion in
the outcome, the Committee would look at the
figures again.
* * * *
This now completes the Committee's recommendations in
relation to the Fitzgerald Report. Since there remain a
number of outstanding issues, I would ask that the Cabinet
consider putting into effect the following provision of the
Kirribilli guidelines, namely: That when there are
conflicts between the Committee's recommendations and those
of the Minister, that the Chairman of the Committee may be
asked to address Cabinet on the matter.
I believe that the Cabinet decision is of such importance
that consideration ought to be given to the proposals being
approved by Caucus before they are announced.
Yours fraternally,
ANDREW THEOPHANOUS , MP
Chair
Caucus Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs
Committee
[197]
[50]
CABINET-IN .. CONFIDENCE
154
[198]
[51]
ATTACHMENT U
1.
While it has not sought to comment specifically on either the
size or composition of Australia's immigration program, the
Department of Community Services and Health supports the overall
direction taken in the Cabinet Submission on the response to the
CAAIP report.
2.
The Department particularly notes and supports the thrust of
the recommendations relating to:
(a) the principles of the proposed model for the recognition of
overseas qualifications; and
(b) migrant settlement, particularly the proposal that DILGEA
should emphasise linking migrants' needs quickly into general
services. More specifically, the Department considers that more
effective methods are required to improve the flow of health
information about new arrivals to State and Territory health
authorities.
3.
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet supports the
broad thrust of the Submission. the Department recognises that
there are social and humanitarian, as well as economic objectives
to be satisfied by the immigration program, and that these need to
be balanced. The presentation of the program to the wider public
is also an important consideration.
4.
While recognising the need to strike a balance between
economic and social concerns, the Department of Industrial
Relations believes that the approach to future immigration policy
5.
Finance considers that the determination of intake levels
should have regard not only to the merits of each migration
category, but also to the capacity of the economy to absorb
particular aggregate intake levels. Given the generally accepted
view that immigration adds immediately to the level of domestic
demand while supply side benefits build only slowly, this concern
is esgecially F~Aevant in the foreseeable future because of
Australia's high level of foreign indebtedness and balance of
payments difficulties.
155
6.
r')
[199]
[52]
ATTACHMENT U
Although the proposed program is at the same level as in

1988-89, that program level was set to accommodate a.backlog that
had developed in previous years. Finance therefore considers that
a lower program level than the proposed 140,000 should be set.
7.
Finance notes that the composition of the program,
particularly the degree of emphasis on skill and age (youth), is
the most important factor in determining the economic benefits from
immigration. Finance supports the proposal to identify separate
arrangements for targeted economic categories, close family
migration and refugee and humanitarian categories. For the
remainder of the program, however, Finance considers that priority
should be given to economic migrants, kinship being a deciding
factor only in instances of equal economic merit. The
recommendation to have a significantly higher number of extended
family category migrants relative to independent migrants will
dilute the potential beneficial impact of migration. T~is is
particularly the . case when even in the 'economic' categories, the
inclusion of dependents means that only about 50% of the intake
enters the workforce.
8.
Finance ' considers that, consistent with CM 11631 and CM 12033,
resource questions which are not urgent and unavoidable should be
deferred for consideration in the 1989-90 new policy context, with
minor new policy proposals being taken up in the portfolio targets
context. In those cases where Ministers agree that resource
decisions cannot await the 1989-90 Budget context, Finance
considers that they should be settled bilaterally with the Minister
for Finance against the requirement of CM 11631 for the
identification of offsetting portfolio savings.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARTS, SPORT, THE ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM AND
TERRITORIES
9.
The Submission, in particular the detailed responses to CAAIP,
the Guiding Principles, and the draft Statement to Parliament, do
not go far enough in defining a rationale for immigration. A long
run vision for Australia should include a wider perception of
security, welfare and environmental considerations, in the
domestic, regional and global contexts.
10. This Department agrees generally with the new policies.
Howev~r, the ~9~Jtment to national interest and continuing
evaluation of the effects of immigration should be made more
explicit. The draft Statement to Parliament would be improved by a
reference...ta.. e R.VJ.i...re>mneFi t-a ,J_ . C@Fl s-4,de ra.t.4@,n s- J.. j,~il.>ragraph 19 dealing
156
[200]
[53]
ATTACHMENT U

Principle (c) at page 49 should refer to 'environrnent.al' as well _as
'social, economic and cultural'.
11. The linkages between population and environment can only be
addressed adequately- -in a longer term framework and by an adequate
further streamlined.
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING
13. The Department of Emp~oyrnent, Education and Training supports
the broad thrust of this Submission, in particular the greater
economic focus being afforded the migration policy.
14. DEET notes that the Submission does not address the longer
term future of responsibility for adult migrant education.
TREASURY
Emplo~rs sho~lq _ pe allowed access to the Employer Nomination
CABINET-IN -CO F DENCE
157
[201]
[54]
ATTACHMENT U
(b) greater weight should be given to skills in short supply in

(c) in view of the very high correlation between unemployment
(d) under the proposal, the proportion of the total intake with
present policy to about 70 per cent (Attachment I, paragraph 13).
program.
16. The Department of Social Security agrees with the overall
direction for reform of Australia's immigration policy outlined in
the Submission.
17. DSS supports the application of the proposed 'balance of
family' ~riterion to migration of parents and the proposed changes
to policy on Assurances of Support. DSS notes that measures
proposed in the area of family migration may, in the longer term,
Cabinet's decision that only those clearly able to honour an
assurance should be permitted to sponsor under this category.
18. DSS also supports the retention and enhancement of the DORS
19. However, the whole approach to population policies implicitly
assumes that the only variable is the net immigration intake. In
spite~of conv~pt~opal
wisdom there may well be areas where the

Australian birthrate could be influenced by eliminating
disincentives to have children. This aspect of population policy
,e --~l:::l,LU.l!!Wl
=s tralian debate.
158
[202]
[55]
ATTACHMENT U
In addition, there is little in the Submission about the

longer-term availability of potential migrants overs~as. It seems
21 . DSS notes that convincing reasons for moving to an external
review system have not been made, particularly given the facts that
the system of Ministerial responsibility has worked well,
Government control over the intake is vital in the public interest,
access to the AAT can be abused as a timing tactic and the AAT is
costly and already over-loaded.
22.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) supports
the proposed creation of a separate economic category which would
include distinct, uncapped categories for business/entrepreneur
migrants (ie. the continuation of the BMP) and for migrants with
specific skills . It supports the proposed establishment of a
separate, capped category of family migrants which gives primacy to
the family unit defined as husband, wife and children and which
recognises mutual dependency and support. It also supports ~he
proposed maintenance of the refugee and humanitarian entry segment
of the program at 14,000, including a contingency reserve reduced
to 1,500.
23. DFAT notes that whilst the proposed new economic category
would provide an identifiable economic focus for the program, the
Submission appears to seek to maintain the current balance between
Australia's economic needs and 'social' demands. It considers that
the program, including the quotas allocated to the economic and
family categories, should rather provide a clear shift in priority
to Australia's economic needs and that this should be a fundamental
aspect of the rationale for the program, to be outlined in the
proposed press release.
24. DYAT does qgt support the recommendation that the economic
category shall bear the brunt of adverse changes in Australia's
economic circumstances. It also notes that the lengthy time lag
before
requires a
20.
159
[203]
[56]
ATTACHMENT U
longer-term commitment to the program. It supports the tightening

up of the family category through the proposed changes to policy.on
assurances of support and parents.
25. With respect to the proposed points-tested economic stream
DFAT agrees with the---proposed weightings set out in Attachment I
figure 1 to the Submission with the exception that greater emphasis
should be placed on English language.
26. DFAT considers that the points-tested stream in the family
category should be smaller than proposed. It does not support
English language capacity being excluded as a factor in this points
test. It notes the costs to the community involved in the absence
of basic English language skills and considers that all prospective
extended family migrants should develop at least basic English
language skills before applying for migration. It also considers
that sponsorship points should only be awarded if the sponsor has
had sound and continuous employment in Australia over a period of
at least two years and has not drawn any unemployment benefits in
that period.
27. DFAT attaches importance to work on the recognition of
overseas qualifications/skills so ~hat the immigration program will
accommodate fully 'skill' factors and supports this issue being
taken up by a working party of the Structural Adjustment Committee.
28. DFAT notes that the extent of negotiated tripartite agreements
is limited and has reservations on the proposal that immigrants
coming under such arrangements should be given priority ove~
employer nominated migrants .
29 . DFAT notes the need, based on both foreign policy and trade
policy to be non-discriminatory in terms of race and ethnic origin.
30. The Department considers the immigration program as proposed
for the next two to three years should be given a stronger economic
focus. This would involve increased immi gration in the Economic
Category through allowing higher intakes in the Independent and
Occupational Share Scheme Categories (as well as demand driven
.
growth in the Business Migration Program and Employer Nomination
Scheme). If necessary, this could be accommodated by an increase
in the total program up to, say, the 150,000 recommended by CAAIP.
31. AX Attachment . I, dealing with application of the points test
for the Extended Family and Independent Categories, the Department
favours option (a) (paragraph 11) which would have the two streams
competing
s
a dditional points
[204]
[57]
CABINET-INCONFIDENCE
160
for kinship.
ATTACHMENT U
This option would lead to a higher skill profile of
migrants than the option proposed in the Draft Submission.

32.
The Attorney-General's Department opposes:
(a)
denial of access to the AAT within 12 months of a review of an
earlier decision;
(b)
the Minister having the power to override a decision of the
AAT; and
(c)
the maintenance of the existing DORS procedure without AAT
review.
33.
The Department also considers that:
(a)
the Migration Act, rather than the Regulations, should confer
jurisdiction on the AAT to review decisions under the Act; and

(b)
basic issues such as the decisions to be subject to review,
who will have standing to appeal, whether the AAT will exercise
determinative or recommendatory powers in respect of each class of
reviewable decision and what fees are payable should be addressed
in the Submission; and
(c)
DILGEA should bring forward a separate Cabinet Submission on
reforming s.36A of the Migration Act.

34.
The Attorney-General's Department notes that costs estimates
have been prepared on the assumption that no backlog of matters

will be transferred to the AAT, that there will be a 12 month
transition period during which the Immigration Review Panels will
continue to function and that there will be a staged commencement
of AAT review of the various classes of decision.
35.
These matters are dealt with in more detail in co-ordination
comments in Attachments L, N and P.

36.
The Attorney-General's Department has also consulted the
Administrative Review Council which has advised as follows.

37.
The Administrative Review Council considers that key aspects
of the proposal concerning review of migration decisions are

unsatisfactory.
The Council reiterates its view that two tier
external review is likely to prove more effective - including cost

effective - for the migration jurisdiction.
If, contrary to that
view, the first tier is internal, its effectiveness as a filter

will depend to a great extent on its perceived independence.
perce~tion
That
will_be even more difficult to establish where it is
defined by regulation rather than by the Act itself and where

regulations prescribe which decisions will be reviewable.
[205]
[58]
ATTACHMENT U.
161
38.
...
The proposal that the Minister be able to override the AAT in
the public interest in particular cases is contrary to all accepted

notions of the rule of law.
standing of the AAT.
The proposal is detrimental to the
Its unsatisfactory nature is not overcome by
a provision for parliamentary tabling of the Minister's decision.

39.
The Cabinet Submission proposes that the Act be amended to
confer on the Minister a power to direct decision makers as to the

general policy to be applied in a particular matter or in the
administration of the Act.
It is not clear from this to what
extent the Minister will have power to give binding directions to

the Secretary, the internal review level or the AAT.
Any proposal
for the binding of decision makers by non-statutory instruments is

open to serious objection.
If the Minister wishes to retain a
facility to determine exceptional cases, a preferable course would

be that recommended by the Council in other areas for the giving by
the Minister of a certificate which would have the effect of
excluding review on the merits in a particular case.
40.
The Council does not agree with the proposal that refugee
status decisions remain outside the external review system.
For
the reasons stated by the Council in its Report No. 25, it remains
of the view that those decisions should be subject to external
review.
The AAT may be constituted by a Federal Court judge if
necessary.
41.
The only reference to recommendatory review appears in
connection with the proposed regulation making power.
The
Submission does not explain what decisions, if any, are to be

subject to recommendatory review.
The Council would reiterate its
earlier view that all jurisdictions of the AAT (including the

present criminal deportation jurisdiction) should be determinative.
42.
There is no statutory authority for the present immigration
appeal fee.
If, under the new proposals, f ees are to be charged
for internal review, it is essential that those fees have a

statutory foundation.
43.
Attachment N to the Submission proposes that, in the
restricted circumstances in which a person may, within a 12 month

period, make a second application, a decision on that second
application not be reviewable.
The Council considers that denying
review in such cases is unreasonable and is likely to lead to

injustice in many cases.
CAB NET-I -CONFIDE CE

1988-89 Cabinet Paper 6164

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1988-89 Cabinet Paper 6164

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[1]

Canberra, 6 December 1988

Amended No. 12103

Government Response to the Report of

The Cabinet :(a)

agreed to the Minister for Immigration, Local

noted the summary of public reaction to the

noted the Inter-Departmental Committee

agreed, with minor modifications, to make

noted the discussion of immigration objectives

Amended No. 12103 (contd)

endorsed the broad approach contained in the 10

the Family Migration ceiling be set at 71,000

the Economic Migration ceiling be set at 54,000

the Humanitarian Migration ceiling be set at

the Special Migration Category be allocated an

the Self-Supporting Retiree sub-category be

the total program for 1989-90 as derived from

Grant of Resident Status (GORS) be retained and

each GORS category be attributed to the

CABIN ET-1 N-CON Fl DENCE

Amended No. 12103 (contd)

an additional 5 ASL ($0.2 million) in 1988-89,

The Cabinet also agreed that :(a)

an Economic Migration program level be set each

Economic Migration be divided into two streams:(i)

a residual broad-based labour force

the targeted migration stream comprise four

Tripartite Negotiated Arrangements;

Individual Employer Nominations;

(iii) Business Migration;

Special Skills Migration;

CABIN ET-1 N-CON Fl DENCE

the present Occupational Shares System be

The Cabinet also agreed :(a)

that a points test be differentially applied to

that the points test as detailed at Figure 1 of

employability with skill, age and language

that the factor of employability be used in

CABIN ET-1 N-CON Fl DENCE

Amended No. 12103 (contd)

that a floating pass mark be used to manage the

that the level of additional funding be settled

to note that an increased Extended Family

to note the useful contribution of the work of

that this model, together with other related

that this IDC should examine overseas skills in

CABIN ET-1 N-CON Fl DENCE

that this IDC should examine the establishment

The Cabinet also agreed :(a)

that parents be processed in the untested Family

that this requirement would count all children

that policy on Assurances of Support be

that the operation of Assurances of Support, the

CABIN ET-1 N-CON Fl DENCE

to note that these changes will realise net

to note that extension of Assurances of Support

The Cabinet also agreed :(a)

to maintain the Refugee/Special Humanitarian

to reject involvement by domestic community

that the Government develop an emergency rescue

CABIN ET-1 N-CO FIDENCE

to further consider a limited utilisation of the