Poorly trained officers took no responsibility for flawed decisions that landed two Australians in immigration detention, despite being citizens

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

Immigration department staff who illegally detained two Australian citizens in 2016 and 2017 were poorly trained, ignored critical information, and took no responsibility for flawed decisions, an internal government report has found.



The report, by a former inspector general of intelligence and security and released under freedom of information laws, says there were systemic failures within the department and it is “quite possible other citizens have been detained or removed [from the country] in similar circumstances”.

“DIBP officers do not consistently demonstrate the requisite knowledge, understanding and skills to fairly and lawfully exercise the power to detain,” Vivienne Thom’s report found.

“In these cases, some decisions were based on erroneous assumptions, did not consider all relevant information or seek to resolve complexities. Officers did not assume personal responsibility for decisions,” she said.

In late 2016 and early 2017, two Australian citizens were unlawfully held in immigration detention, despite evidence – including the men telling officials – they were Australian.

Both were detained for deportation under section 501 of the migration act after serving custodial sentences.

A spokesperson from the Department of Home Affairs said the department “is committed to improving its procedures and has agreed to implement all of the review’s recommendations”.

“Any claim for compensation would be a matter for the individuals and their legal representatives.”

One man was born in Australia to New Zealand citizen parents.

He had been a citizen of Australia since he was 10 years old, and repeatedly told immigration department officials he was Australian, but was ignored.

“I am Australian-born,” he said in one interview. “I have been in Australia for my whole life. I’ve only been to New Zealand once. I have children that are Australian-born. I was not born in New Zealand and you’ve got it all wrong, my birth certificate should be on the system and in my file. I’ve only been out of Australia once in my life, and you are trying to kick out someone that was born here.”

He was ultimately released after 97 days in detention.

In another case, a man born in the Australian-controlled external Territory of Papua – prior to Papua New Guinea’s independence in 1975 – was detained by immigration officials on suspicion of being an “unlawful non-citizen”.

This is despite the fact he was an Australian citizen from birth, by virtue of having been born in an Australian territory. He was released after 13 days.

The review of the men’s detentions was undertaken by Vivienne Thom, a private contractor with CPM Reviews, and formerly the inspector general of intelligence and security. Her at-times excoriating report found fundamental and structural flaws within the department.

She found that immigration officials were inadequately trained: “Staff involved in this case did not have the fundamental level of knowledge required to perform their duties,” and that despite obvious anomalies in the cases, no one at the immigration department sought to investigate the wrongful detentions further.

New home affairs department seems to be more about politics than reform | John Blaxland Read more

“On a number of occasions different DIBP officers received critical information that differed from that recorded in [the department’s database]. No consistent attempts were made to resolve the inconsistencies or escalate the matter.”

Thom said it was “unacceptable that this information was not read or reviewed” by officials.

“It is difficult to see how any officer could properly have made a lawful decision … without considering this information.”

One senior immigration department official told Thom of an insular culture within the department.

“I think some of this speaks to culture; a culture of working in your ‘lane’ and not having a broader view or appreciating the context. To some extent this shouldn’t matter if each officer did form their own reasonable suspicion (correctly), but I can’t help but think there is something about the collectiveness of this behavior that says our staff aren’t being professionally curious (might be driven by change fatigue, lack of engagement, poor training etc).”

The recent cases hold echoes of controversies from a decade ago.

In 2001, the department deported an Australian citizen, Vivian Alvarez Solon, to the Philippines, because it wrongly assumed she had been trafficked into Australia as a sex slave. The department realised she was an Australian citizen in 2003, and knew it had unlawfully deported her, but did not tell her family, who had reported her as a missing person, until 2005.

In 2004 and 2005, an Australian permanent resident, Cornelia Rau, who was suffering an acute mental health episode, was detained for 10 months, including in prison, by the immigration department, because it failed to follow its own procedures for identifying her.

A subsequent inquiry by the former Australian federal police commissioner, Mick Palmer, found a “serious cultural problem” within the department. Palmer said the department showed weak leadership, with untrained and incompetent staff given “exceptional, even extraordinary powers” and focused on detaining and deporting people without any concern for due process or checks.

The commonwealth ombudsman further investigated 221 cases of Australian citizens being wrongly and illegally detained by immigration officials. One was illegally detained three times for a total of eight months.

The immigration department, now part of the Department of Home Affairs, previously confirmed the recent unlawful detentions, but said the department had sought to address its processes.

“After it was identified that each individual held dual Australian citizenship, arrangements were immediately made for their release from immigration detention.

“The circumstances surrounding their detention have been reviewed and appropriate safeguards have been implemented.”