This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/03/asylum-seekers-may-be-subject-to-speedy-on-water-screenings

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
‘In’ or ‘out’: what we know about 'enhanced screening' of asylum seekers ‘In’ or ‘out’: what we know about 'enhanced screening' of asylum seekers
(about 2 months later)
It takes days for asylum seekers to arrive by boat in Australian waters, but it can take just a few short questions to send them straight home.It takes days for asylum seekers to arrive by boat in Australian waters, but it can take just a few short questions to send them straight home.
The “enhanced screening” of thousands of asylum seekers has previously occurred on Christmas Island and in Darwin, but reports this week indicate the federal government may have radically changed how it works. Fairfax Media reported on Thursday that asylum seekers from at least one vessel may have been screened on board an Australian customs vessel, and could be sent directly to Sri Lanka.The “enhanced screening” of thousands of asylum seekers has previously occurred on Christmas Island and in Darwin, but reports this week indicate the federal government may have radically changed how it works. Fairfax Media reported on Thursday that asylum seekers from at least one vessel may have been screened on board an Australian customs vessel, and could be sent directly to Sri Lanka.
In October 2012 the Gillard government introduced enhanced screening to be used on Sri Lankan asylum seekers. The process is controversial because it is not an assessment of a person’s refugee claim, but rather a triaging method to assess whether the department thinks a person might have a valid refugee claim. Claims are divided into two simple categories: “in” or “out”.In October 2012 the Gillard government introduced enhanced screening to be used on Sri Lankan asylum seekers. The process is controversial because it is not an assessment of a person’s refugee claim, but rather a triaging method to assess whether the department thinks a person might have a valid refugee claim. Claims are divided into two simple categories: “in” or “out”.
The process is mired in secrecy but Guardian Australia has obtained interview transcripts and the only publicly available data on screening numbers from the immigration department that reveal new details about the policy.The process is mired in secrecy but Guardian Australia has obtained interview transcripts and the only publicly available data on screening numbers from the immigration department that reveal new details about the policy.
These documents show 3,529 enhanced screening interviews were held between October 2012 and November 2013. The screenings disproportionately targeted Sri Lankans, with 99.3% of the detainees having "Sri Lanka" listed as their nationality.These documents show 3,529 enhanced screening interviews were held between October 2012 and November 2013. The screenings disproportionately targeted Sri Lankans, with 99.3% of the detainees having "Sri Lanka" listed as their nationality.
On average, Sri Lankans account for 20% of the people in detention.On average, Sri Lankans account for 20% of the people in detention.
Of the Sri Lankans who underwent the process, 41.9% were screened out and 32% were screened in. In a significant number of cases no outcome was given.Of the Sri Lankans who underwent the process, 41.9% were screened out and 32% were screened in. In a significant number of cases no outcome was given.
Over time, the proportion of people screened in and out has varied. We have only partial figures for August 2013, and nothing for September. We have only two months of figures while the Coalition has been in government: October and November. In those two months all asylum seekers were screened out, though it is too early to say if this constitutes a trend.Over time, the proportion of people screened in and out has varied. We have only partial figures for August 2013, and nothing for September. We have only two months of figures while the Coalition has been in government: October and November. In those two months all asylum seekers were screened out, though it is too early to say if this constitutes a trend.
In October 2013 the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, suggested the government would begin subjecting all Sri Lankan asylum seekers to screening.In October 2013 the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, suggested the government would begin subjecting all Sri Lankan asylum seekers to screening.
Here's how the process works.Here's how the process works.
One immigration officer conducts a short interview to screen asylum seekers in or out. The interviewing officer will sit down with the asylum seeker, in person or via teleconference. Sometimes a translator is present, sometimes on a phone line. A previous template of the interview from April 2013 shows that the officer will say the following words: One immigration officer conducts a short interview to screen asylum seekers in or out. The interviewing officer will sit down with the asylum seeker, in person or via teleconference. Sometimes a translator is present, sometimes on a phone line. A previous template of the interview from April 2013 shows that the officer will say the following words:
“Because you arrived in Australia without a visa you are an unlawful non-citizen and do not have an automatic right to remain in Australia. Therefore a finding is to be made as to whether you have a valid reason to be allowed to remain in Australia. The purpose of this interview is to inform that finding by collecting information about you and your reasons for coming to Australia.“Because you arrived in Australia without a visa you are an unlawful non-citizen and do not have an automatic right to remain in Australia. Therefore a finding is to be made as to whether you have a valid reason to be allowed to remain in Australia. The purpose of this interview is to inform that finding by collecting information about you and your reasons for coming to Australia.
“If on the basis of the information that you provide or is otherwise available to the Australian government it is found that you should be allowed to remain in Australia, then you will be advised about how your case will proceed in due course.”“If on the basis of the information that you provide or is otherwise available to the Australian government it is found that you should be allowed to remain in Australia, then you will be advised about how your case will proceed in due course.”
Then come the questions: “What are your reasons for coming to Australia? Do you have any other reasons for coming to Australia? Would you like to add anything else?”Then come the questions: “What are your reasons for coming to Australia? Do you have any other reasons for coming to Australia? Would you like to add anything else?”
If the detainee does not raise a red flag by saying they want to seek asylum because they fear persecution, or if the interviewing officer does not believe them, they can be screened out and deported. While a review can take place, Guardian Australia’s analysis shows the department’s records don’t always show that a review has happened.If the detainee does not raise a red flag by saying they want to seek asylum because they fear persecution, or if the interviewing officer does not believe them, they can be screened out and deported. While a review can take place, Guardian Australia’s analysis shows the department’s records don’t always show that a review has happened.
Last year the speedy nature of the process caused human rights groups and the UNHCR to express serious reservations about screening. Reports of the new “on-water” approach to screenings has escalated these concerns because it makes it even more difficult for asylum seekers to gain legal advice before they undertake an interview.Last year the speedy nature of the process caused human rights groups and the UNHCR to express serious reservations about screening. Reports of the new “on-water” approach to screenings has escalated these concerns because it makes it even more difficult for asylum seekers to gain legal advice before they undertake an interview.
The Australian director of Human Rights Watch, Elaine Pearson, said the reports were “extremely concerning” and described a practice that was “probably unlawful”.The Australian director of Human Rights Watch, Elaine Pearson, said the reports were “extremely concerning” and described a practice that was “probably unlawful”.
Katie Wrigley, a principal solicitor at the Refugee Advice and Casework Service, said: “It would be almost impossible for the people in that situation to access legal services. It’s already incredibly difficult for clients in remote centres to access services, but if it’s a person on a vessel that would be near impossible.Katie Wrigley, a principal solicitor at the Refugee Advice and Casework Service, said: “It would be almost impossible for the people in that situation to access legal services. It’s already incredibly difficult for clients in remote centres to access services, but if it’s a person on a vessel that would be near impossible.
“We would hold very grave concern about individuals not being able to access legal advice if they were held on board a vessel.”“We would hold very grave concern about individuals not being able to access legal advice if they were held on board a vessel.”
The immigration department has previously received advice from its own legal counsel that the on-water approach may be unlawful. Guardian Australia reported on Wednesday that the department had previously considered using the customs ships Ocean Protector and Triton as “motherships” to screen asylum seekers secretly on the vessels.The immigration department has previously received advice from its own legal counsel that the on-water approach may be unlawful. Guardian Australia reported on Wednesday that the department had previously considered using the customs ships Ocean Protector and Triton as “motherships” to screen asylum seekers secretly on the vessels.
Guardian Australia asked the immigration minister’s office whether new advice had been received on the screening of asylum seekers on board customs vessels. It did not respond to questions.Guardian Australia asked the immigration minister’s office whether new advice had been received on the screening of asylum seekers on board customs vessels. It did not respond to questions.