A- A A+

Count the cost of refugee legal aid 'savings'

Kerry Murphy |  01 April 2014

Providing legal assistance to Iraqi refugeeOn 31 March, Immigration Minister Scott Morrison announced that 'the end of taxpayer-funded immigration advice to illegal boat arrivals' would save $100 million.

For over 20 years, the Department of Immigration has funded immigration advice for people seeking protection. Under both the Coalition and Labor there was always some funding. Legal aid is not available, so the Department funding was the only source of free legal assistance. The funds were limited either by a means test or to those who arrived by boat without a visa.

Now that funding has ceased. Which means no free professional assistance for what is an increasingly complex area of the law.

This is said to be both the fulfillment of an election promise and a cost-saving measure, though it is in fact only a short-term accounting saving. If advice and assistance on complex issues of immigration and refugee law is only available to those with money or the luck to gain access to pro bono assistance, this is not a saving, but a cost. People who are in detention may end up relying on unscrupulous advisors, or those who lack the experience and skills in this area. Pro bono work should exist to help plug gaps, not fill a massive hole.

The Minister states:

The withdrawal of taxpayer funded immigration advice and assistance does not prevent those who arrived illegally having access to legal assistance. In addition, those who wish to provide immigration advice and application assistance pro bono are free to do so. Access to any private and/or pro bono immigration advice by illegal boat or air arrivals will be facilitated by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, with all costs to be met by the providers of these services.

Private access has always been possible, but is often limited due to logistics about accessing detention centres. What this announcement ignores is the need for a funded system for those unable to afford private firms. It is not just representation, but also the cost of interpreters and translation; there are no free services for these crucial skills. Outside the main cities, there are travel and accommodation costs also to be covered.

'Australia's protection obligations do not extend to providing free immigration advice and assistance to those who arrived in Australia illegally,' states the Minister.

The Refugee Convention does not discuss this, but it also does not say we have to have mandatory detention, or deny access to permanent residence and to immediate family reunion. Yet this Government cheerfully seeks to implement all of these. The key responsibility in refugee law is to not refoule (send someone back to possible persecution). Denying people funded applications assistance increases the risk of refoulement.

If people choose to violate how Australia chooses to run our refugee and humanitarian program, they should not presume upon the support and assistance provided to those who seek to come the right way, and they should certainly not receive additional assistance, as they did under the previous government.

Someone comes here and claims they are at risk of persecution, and that is violating a refugee program? Please. Besides, this is not a new funding program, it operated under the Howard Government as well. Refugee programs are not about maintaining orderly bus queues; they are about ensuring that people who meet the strict criteria are protected from returning to a country where they are at risk of persecution.

Under these changes the government will provide illegal arrivals clear instructions in multiple languages setting out the asylum application and assessment process and will provide interpreters. This is similar to the process employed by the UNHCR around the world.

Maybe if you are in a refugee camp in Jordan, where there are over 1.2 million Syrian refugees, but we are in a highly industrialised and wealthy western country with an advanced legal system. Is a translated document really the best we can offer?

Refugee law in Australia is very complex. The text books are thick, and dense with legalese. This is because governments keep changing the laws and adding new and often convoluted criteria. The majority of migration cases in the Federal and High Courts since 1992 have been related to refugee law. The Refugee Review Tribunal's Refugee Law Guide is over 300 pages — will this be translated and available in detention centres?

Before any of the ad hominem commentators have a go at a refugee lawyer complaining about funding cuts, here is my disclosure. I do not do any cases which are government funded. I have some pro bono cases. My wife and business partner works part time at a legal centre, but the psychological cost to her in being stressed by funding cuts and dealing with other complex matters is not financially compensated by anything she might earn. In fact, our firm loses money by her being there.

In theory I should applaud this decision as it means possibly more clients, but a major interest for us is the proper treatment of and service to the clients. Those who are unable to pay for advice will be pushing to get help from the already overstretched pro bono assistance available in this area.

Poorly prepared cases take longer to assess, and may give rise to more legal errors, so take up the time of the courts. Asylum seekers become frustrated at being unable to have their stories properly presented. This will add to pre-existing mental health issues and make their settlement needs more expensive.

It seems we can spend millions on throwaway boats and offshore detention centres, but not on the people whose job is to help resolve refugee applications. Presenting this as a cost-saving measure does not factor in the other actual and potential costs we will have to face.

This decision is plainly a bad one and is yet a further example of the Government's policy of punishment for those who come on boats without a visa. I suspect it is hoped that those of us already providing pro bono assistance will be swamped and unable to adequately represent people. A Government that makes such a decision and trumpets it as a cost-saving measure does not care what happens to those adversely affected.

Kerry Murphy headshotKerry Murphy is a partner with the specialist immigration law firm D'Ambra Murphy Lawyers. He is a student of Arabic, former Jesuit Refugee Service coordinator, teaches at ANU, and was recognised by AFR best lawyers survey as one of Australia's top immigration lawyers.



Comments should be short, respectful and on topic. Email is requested for identification purposes only.

Word Count: 0 (please limit to 200)

Submitted comments

This is as clear an example as one can get of why we need a constitutional guarantee of the rights of citizens and all other people in Australia to protection from all forms of abuse by government, whether arbitrary or legislated. No one, but no one, has as much power as executive government has to harm any one of us, and that power needs to be contained, not by legislation of the parliament (which can be over-ridden by the parliament) but rather by a constitutional amendment agreed by the people and enforced by the courts.

Ginger Meggs 01 April 2014

The only way anyone can be protected in any signatory country is to be in the signatory country and there has never been any law that says people have to stand or sit in danger in other countries and scream out YooHoo let me in?

Marilyn 02 April 2014

Thanks for this detailed and clear account. And congratulations on the cool you keep while setting it out. How does one keep one's cool when dealing with the remorseless inhumanity of this government? And how tiresome it is to have to listen to the untruthful reiteration of the word 'illegal' applied to asylum seekers? Kerry, to keep us from despair we need you - desperately.

Joe Castley 02 April 2014

Moral compass gone West. No shame nor compassion visible at all among Conservatives.

Peter Hudson 02 April 2014

Thanks, Kerry, for your clarity and calm. This remorseless pursuit of the vulnerable and the stranger takes us beyond the stage identified by George Bernard Shaw -the worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity.

Gerard 02 April 2014

The Government should not spend a single cent for unnecessary legal aid to support the people smuggling industry. The Government has wasted far too much money to make a few lawyers richer.

Beat Odermatt 02 April 2014

There will be more immigration sharks who fleece the immigrants. In NZ there have been quite a few, particularly from the immigrants home country. It is always the immigrant who misses out after paying money to the immigration sharks, as well as suffering immense trauma from one of their own country. Bad decision.

Noeline Champion 02 April 2014

STOP INHUMANITY: STOP BURNING TAX 9 on mandatory detention] We are starting a group with soome prominent business and church leaders; GUTSI = Greater Understanding Through Social Interaction. the main aim is to engender a return to humanity and essentially stop offshore processing which interns innocent people in Camps indefinately including CHILDREN! it is non denominational a political. your support would be greatly valued and wewill enedeavor to assist your work Steve Shikin convenor GUTSI We want banners on every religious taberacle in Australia like the one on St Pauls at Flinders Station in Melbourne

Steve Shilkin 02 April 2014

Similar articles

Time for Labor to disown PNG solution

Tony Kevin | 28 February 2014

Manus Island regional processing facility, Papua New GuineaOver the past week of Parliament, we have seen the strange and distressing spectacle of Labor timidly criticising the Government's handling of the events on Manus Island. If it were brave enough, Labor could use these events as a trigger for policy change. To call for the Manus centre to close, and for detention and processing centres in Australia to reopen, would be the moral policy for Labor at this point.

The dawning of the Age of Unpleasantness

Brian Matthews | 28 February 2014

Poster from Hair the MusicalJoe Hockey's idea of an age of entitlement is shallow and facile. Announcing the end of an 'age' is just another way of obscuring the truth that you haven't the faintest idea what the hell is going on, or that you suspect what's going on but not how to influence, redirect or stop it. So you fall back on this persuasive notion of a great shift in the times. The next 'age' for those whose entitlement is disappearing will be marked by unpleasantness.

$6 co-payment not what the doctor ordered

Michael Mullins | 24 February 2014

GP visiting hospital patient

Health minister Peter Dutton has refused to dismiss the possibility that a $6 ‘co-payment’ for GP visits could be announced in the May Federal Budget. This would be no more than a quick and easy temporary fix that would penalise ordinary Australians. It would simply defer the government's need to tackle the vested interests that are arguably the major cause of the inefficiencies that have made our health care system prohibitively expensive.

Morrison's law of intended consequences

Tony Kevin | 21 February 2014

Scott Morrison at media conferenceManus is not subject to Australian law and public accountability safeguards, or only very imperfectly. Cover-up of atrocity is a lot easier in Manus than it would be in an Australian detention centre. And this of course is what was intended. Manus is part of the asylum-seeker deterrent system. The fear of death at sea, and the fear of death by security force brutalisation at Manus, are intended to deter asylum-seeker voyages. To stop the boats.

Toxic politics endure as Morrison gets nosy with the Navy

Ray Cassin | 19 February 2014

Scott MorrisonScott Morrison is the first Immigration Minister to inspect ADF facilities. There has always been cooperation between the Defence Force and other government agencies, but Operation Sovereign Borders has radically changed the playing field. Indonesia's politicians might relish the irony of seeing in Australia an increasing interpenetration of military and civilian hierarchies — something that Australians used to see as a fault in Indonesia.