Protected: Sensitive - Cabinot Paper trail number: Pail iii: Minute To: Finn Pratt Secretary From: Evan Lewis Group Manager, MSSC Barbara Bennett Deputy Secretary Date: November 2016 Gritical date: (if required) 23 November 2016 Subject; DIBP-DSS Bilateral Meeting - Secretary Pezzullo Background 1. The Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP), Mr Michael Pezzullo has requested a Ineeting with you. An agreed agenda for the parasina is at Attachment A. Proposed talking pointe for your possible use are at Altachment B, together with background informations 2. You will be accompanied to the meeting by Barbara Bennett, Serena Wilson, Cath Halbert and Evan Lewis. The meeting will be held at DIBP’s National Office, 6 Chan St, Belconnen. Issues Protected: Sensitive - CabinetProtected: Sensitive - Cabinet Recommendations 5. Itis recommended that you a) Note this minute and the attached papers, and b) Seek further engagement between the departments as outlined against specific agenda items. Evan Lewis Attachments Attachment A - Agenda Attachment B - Talking Points and Background information against agenda items Attachment € ~ Authorisation under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1989 made on 21 April 2016 Attachment D - DSS Comments on exposure drafts Protected: Sensitive - CabinetProtected: Sensitive - Cabinet Blank for agenda Protected: Sensitive - CabinetProtected: Sensitive - Cabinet Blank for agenda Protected: Sensitive - CabinetProtected: Sensitive - Cabinet Attachment B Department of Social Services Secretary Briefing DIBP DSS Secretaries Meeting - 23 November 2016 TALKING POINTS: AGENDA ITEM 1 - Harmonising AAT Legislation « DSS supports the Legislation Harmonisation Project which aims to align the different conditions of the various entities amalgamated into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in 2015. ¢ DSS has proposed that any changes that ensue from this review maintain the integrity of the tribunal so that there is still an affordable and accessible system for people to use which is independent and impartial. DIBP summary of agenda item DIBP is participating in the AAT Legislation Harmonisation Project with the AAT, Attomey-General's Deparment (AGD), Department of Social Services (DSS) and Department of Human Services (DHS), from October to February. The project, led by consultant Mr Andrew Metcalfe, will examine opportunities to harmonise procedures between the Divisions of the AAT, The AAT President has proposed seven changes to the Migration and Refugee Division’s procedures. DSS Outcome/s sought from meeting: * DSS js interested in hearing any DIPB initial views about the review now that the process has commenced. Key issues: * DSS supports the overall objectives of the harmonisation process as long as the proposed changes are reasonable and appropriate. + DSS is supporting the process by participating in both the Secretaries’ Steering Committee and the Working Group but is not contributing towards the cost of the. consultancy or seconding an officer to the project. (We understand that DIBP will), + The AAT is proposing reforms in nine areas, six of which potentially have implications for DSS. ~ DSS will consult with policy areas and with DHS to fully consider any implications and cost issues. ~ Some of the proposals do not align with the policy position that DSS expressed at the time of its involvernent in the tribunal amalgamation and this will need to be explored more fully. Protected: Sensitive - CabinetProtected: Sensitive - Cabinet * Some examples are: ~The proposal to extend alternative dispute resolution processes to the Social Services and Child Support Division (SSCSD) would not be suitable due to the informal and non-adversarial nature of Tier 1 reviews, ~The proposal to extend the power to remit a matter for reconsideration during a review could add delay to the resolution of matters and, if so, would not be a desirable outcome. + _DIBP appears to be more affected by the proposals as more of their review requirements are legislated, Background information: ‘The amalgamation of the Commonwealth merits review tribunals took effect from 1 July 2015. The Legislation Harmonisation Project will run from October 2016 to February 2017 and is being led by an external consultant, Mr Andrew Metcalfe AO, Representatives from the AGD, DIBP, DHS and the AAT are joining DSS on the two governance bodies for the project. DSS is being represented on the Working Group by Alan Grinsell-Jones, Branch Manager, Legal Services, and Anita Davis, Acting Branch Manager, International and Policy. The Working Group has met twice on 7 October and 11 November. The Working Group has considered the Project Plan and Terms of Reference, a draft Report Structure for the final report and the milestone schedule for the duration of the Review. The outcome of the project will be a report on the legislative measures recommended by Mr Metcalfe which will be put to the Secretaries’ Steering Committee for consideration. Protected: Sensitive - CabinetProtected: Sensitive - Cabinet AGENDA ITEM 2 — Counter Terrorism and Countering Violent Extremism - update « DSS continues to work closely with the Attorney General's Department (AGD) and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism issues. ¢ DSS support includes membership of the Countering Violent Extremism Sub-Committee (CVESC) and work through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). ¢ DSS is involved in the implementation of the COAG initiatives, including through the High Priority Communities working group and Families working group. DIBP summary of agenda item: This item provides the opportunity for agencies to discuss their activities in Counter-Terrorism and Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). DSS Outcome/s sought from meeting: * Note DSS’ role in progressing Australia's Counter Terrorism and Countering Violent Extremism agenda through the COAG working groups and the CVE-VTC Key issues: ‘+ The COAG CVE work is time limited and will report back to COAG at its meeting in December 2016. * CVESC is ongoing. Background information: CVESC: Work on CVE is led by the AGD supported by DSS and other agencies, and is a priority of the Australian Government. DSS support includes membership of CVESC. AGD also consults DSS on policy and community engagement matters, including ensuring that social policy aspects are considered and not ignored in the context of CVE. COAG: Following the tragic shooting of Mr Curtis Cheng at the New South Wales Police Headquarters on 2 October 2015, COAG met on 15 October 2015 to discuss Australia’s approach to CVE. At the meeting, attendees identified seven themes or areas where greater collaboration could improve outcomes. A number of key initiatives that build on existing CVE efforts were identified. The Countering Violent Extremism Taskforce (CVE-VTC) was established for a time limited term to undertake an oversight, coordination, information sharing and reporting role for the development and implementation of CVE initiatives. Protected: Sensitive - CabinetProtected: Sensitive - Cabinet The taskforce is co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary, National Security and Criminal Justice Group in AGD and the Commonwealth Counter Terrorism Coordinator in PMC. DSS is represented on the CVE-VTC by Deputy Secretary, Barbara Bennett, Seven working groups were established to undertake this work, including Families Schools and youth Online environment ‘Strategic communication High priority communities Correctional facilities Research and evaluation DSS co-chairs the High Priority Communities working group and is represented on the Families working group. The High Priority Communities working group working group aims to: * Improve coordination and collaboration in identified local government areas. * Coordinate and collaborate on which local government areas to approach first. * Share information to give visibility and share best practice. + Improve understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of federal and state governments. * Note the value in communities and what communities can offer. The work of the High Priority Communities working group is on track, and up to date. DSS js also a member of the Families working group, which aims to: + Establish a national approach to counselling and support services via a helpline. * State and Territory members report on community-led and formal intervention programs. * State and Territory members report on good practice and lessons learnt from community-led, face-to-face support networks. Protected: Sensitive - CabinetProtected: Sensitive - Cabinet AGENDA ITEM 3 ~ Information Sharing to Support Visa Cancellation . Requests for information under social security law, that may affect visa decisions, should be sent to DHS. DHS will check that the request complies with the authorisation signed on 21 April 2016 and issue the information to DIBP. DSS has contact details for the relevant area in DHS. DIBP summary of agenda item: Under a legislative instruments signed in April 2016, DSS is now able to provide information to DIBP for use in section 501 (Migration Act) visa cancellation and visa application refusal decisions which can be protected from disclosure to the visa holder/applicant. DIBP seeks discussion with DSS about these new arrangements and how they might be given best effect. DSS Outcome/s sought from meeting: + Engage in discussion of how the arrangements for these information requests will work and refer DIBP to contact in DHS. Key issues: * An authorisation was signed by the Chief Executive of Centrelink on 21 April 2016 enabling DHS to provide DIBP with information in visa cancellation and visa application refusal decisions in certain circumstances. A copy of the authorisation is at Attachment C to this brief. + DHS has advised that requests should be sent to the Information Release Section at the Department of Human Services by email: «Requests should indicate when the information is required by and provide details of any urgency. Background information: The 21 April 2016 authorisation was made under subparagraph 208(1)(b) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Act). The power was delegated by the Secretary to the Chief Executive under subparagraph 234(3) of the Act. 208 Disclosure of information by Secretary (1) Despite sections 204 and 207, the Secretary may: (b) disclose any such information: (i) to the Secretary of a Department of State of the Commonwealth or to the head of an authority of the Commonwealth for the purposes of that Department or authority; or 234 Delegation (3) The Secretary cannot delegate to anyone except the Chief Executive Centrelink the Secretary's power under subsection 208(1) to disclose information to a person referred to in subparagraph 208(1)(b)(i). Protected: Sensitive - CabinetProtected: Sensitive - Cabinet AGENDA ITEM 4- Visa Reform « DSS supports the need for capability improvements to improve collection of biometrics, data sharing and the visa processing system. « The visa reform proposal has significant flow on impacts for other policy areas and portfolios. DSS is concerned the | Aiea short to allow these to be properly considered and imple « For example, government needs to decide where the ‘safety net should be positioned for migrants under proy \visa system, taking into account the impacts on'social cohesion and \productivity, as well as short and long termmcosts to government, * DSS is working with DIBP on costing six options for access to social security payments and identifying associated savings and ‘social impacts. * The impacts on DHS will also need to be considered * Access to other social services, such as health, education and employment services, including state and territory services, also needs to be covered in more detail. aa is concerned that ine a oposet seuiderenotie | potent factors ) by creating double’ — oan and citizens very differently. * The extent to which a two tier system is realised will be largely based on government decisions about access to payments and services that promote integration and mutual obligation, as well as the overarching national narrative. Immediate or early access to payments and programs should be considered where it has the potential to reduce long term costs to Goverment, such as early intervention programs (e.g. NDIS) oraccess to capacity development programs such as training and education. DSS strongly recommends that humanitarian entrants be excluded from any social security changes relating to the visa reform proposal. DSS considers that those who choose to take a provisional pathway to permanence are not the same as temporary residents and should receive different (better) treatment in terms of payments and supports than those not making any ongoing commitment to Australia. Protected: Sensitive - CabinetProtected: Sensitive - Cabinet DIBP summary of agenda item: (4.1) Provisional/Permanent Strategy — entitlements and support. DIBP has 6 oe ‘with other government departments (including DSS) on reforms proposed to th and citizenship system which will reframe temporary, provisional, and permanent migration and citizenship. DIBP seeks discussion on the impact these reforms will have on migrants’ access to welfare and support services. (4.2) DIBP proposes to bring forward a business case for an integrated package of reforms across policy, service delivery and risk assessment before the end of 2016. The business case will include proposals for innovative, future focussed service delivery that will make the most of new technologies and automation, The reforms will deliver a sustainable visa system that will facilitate economic development while protecting the border and the community. DSS Outcome/s sought from meeting: + Agreement that Humanitarian entrants move directly to permanence or ensure their access to welfare support is maintained even if they are on provisional visas. (this will require amendments to the Social Services Act)... + Agreement that options and savings in the Social Services portfolio will be presented by the Minister for Social Services. + Agreement that DIBP will consult closely with DSS around public messaging approaches. «Agreement to take the time necessary to ensure the proposal contains advice to government on the flow on implications for other agencies. Key issues + DIBP are depending on savings from reduced access to social security payments to partially offset what we understand are hugé costs'6f their proposal (costs only known to central agencies). ~ \The degree of savings may not be as significant as DIBP expect, given isting waiting periods, to change systems, legislation etc and the potential for costs to be deferred until later in a person's life if early intervention is not available. «DSS recently provided comments on exposure draft proposals. These are at Attachment D. + Social cohesion is a two-way street — to integrate successfully, migrants must feel and be treated as equals, as well as making the effort to learn English, uphold Australian values and participate in society. ~ Equitable access to social security is a key part of this. * This proposal has the potential to fundamentally change access to social ‘security payments (and potentially other social services) for newly arrived migrants, as access has always been based on residency. — Atpresent, migrants (except humanitarian entrants) must serve waiting periods before accessing income support, and generally have low take-up rates once eligible. Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet 1Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet * DSS strongly recommends that Humanitarian entrants be excluded from the proposed provisional visa period and/or extended waiting periods for social security payments, - The welfare safety net is key to their successful long term settlement as they are particularly vulnerable and generally have no other means of support, ~ Reducing access is also likely to contravene our international obligations. + DIBP are likely to argue that provisional migrants should be treated as temporary residents until they have proven their commitment to Australia, and that, as temporary migrants, they have no entitlements to goverment support. — DSS consider this does not recognise the commitment of these migrants: in taking a longer, more expensive and more difficult path towards permanence and citizenship than is currently available. — The vast majority of permanent migrants make positive social and economic contributions to Australia and should continue to be encouraged to do so. ~ Immediate or early access to payments and programs should be considered where it has the potential to reduce long term costs to Government. Background information: National Secunty Commitee of Cabinet agreed to anew eWOFK, The reform involves mandatory granting of a reel B They are the subject af two recent exposure draft cabinet submissions and a business ease. * Ministers Dutton and Porter met on 19 October to discuss the visa framework reforms. It was agreed that advice on options for access to government payments and services would be provided following detailed discussions between DSS and DIBP. + DIBP has asked DSS to provide indicative costings on six options. However, after agreement of the options on 4 November 2016 we only received demographic information necessary to undertake the costings on 11 November 2016. DSS costings and assumptions are required for many other agencies to determine their ‘own impacts. * The Dep Sec level IDC will meet after you meeting with Secretary Pezzullo on 23 November to discuss the options and costings. Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet 12Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet AGENDA ITEM 5 — 2016-17 Humanitarian Program ¢ DSS has received confirmation of the numbers and composition of the 2016-17 Humanitarian Program, as signed off by Minister Dutton. ¢ Early advice on the visa allocation composition of the Humanitarian Program is always appreciated and helps DSS to advise settlement service providers and other Commonwealth and State funded services on indicative referral numbers for planning and resourcing. e DSS has advised Humanitarian Settlement Services (HSS) providers of their indicative planning levels for 2016-17. DSS would like DIBP to implement a more formal engagement process for planning the Humanitarian Program settings, prior to these being put to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for approval. ¢ DSS's input would ensure that any issues with particular settlement sites, settlement outcomes and/or cohorts could be considered at the planning stage and included in the ministerial submission if required. ¢ Following on the Prime Minister's announcement to maintain the refugee intake at 18,750 beyond 2018-19, including a small intake from Central America, DSS welcomes discussions with DIBP to ensure settlement support is well placed to respond to the needs of this cohort. ¢ | would also be interested in when the intake of refugees from Central America is likely to take effect. ° DIBP summary of agenda item: Discussion regarding the proposed size and composition of the 2016-17 Humanitarian Program and any implications for DIBP or DSS DSS Outcome/s sought from meeting: * Agreement that DSS be formally consulted on the formulation of the visa allocations for the 2017-18 Humanitarian Program. Key issues: * On 4 October 2016, DIBP provided DSS with the visa allocation numbers for the 2016-17 Humanitarian Program prior to Ministerial clearance and for internal use only. + DSS would like to be included in planning the formulation of the next Humanitarian Program's make up before it is provided to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for approval. This will ensure the determination of proposed offshore caseloads is better informed by up to date settlement trends and social cohesion issues. To date DSS has not been involved in discussions or providing information to DIBP to assist with formulating the makeup of the program Protected: Sensitive - CabinetProtected: Sensitive - Cabinet * Earlier provision of these figures will also provide greater assurance to the settlement sector on program year numbers for their planning. Backaround information: The Australian Government, represented by the Minister of Immigration and Border Protection, determines the annual size of the Humanitarian Program and announces these figures in the Budget. Following this announcement, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection determines the composition of the Humanitarian Program by nationality and visa subclass (such as refugee or Special Humanitarian Program subclasses). DIBP manages the delivery of the program, including ensuring that visa targets are met as set by the Minister. These targets are not publicly available but are provided to DSS to assist with settlement planning. These targets are usually provided to DSS in late August/early September of each program year. Upon receiving the Humanitarian Program numbers and DIBP overseas post visa allocations approved by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, DSS forecasts “Annual Indicative Referral Levels" (AIRLs) for each settlement location. These figures are provided to HSS service providers to assist them to forward plan for their relevant contract region. They are not a guaranteed allocation or target and are subject to change during the course of the program year. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has approved the Humanitarian program allocations for 2016-17. DSS has informed service providers of the likely size and composition of ew arrivals which may be referred to them. PM's announcement on the increase to the Humanitarian Program On 21 September 2016, the Prime Minister announced at a leaders’ summit on refugees that the government would maintain Australia's annual humanitarian refugee intake at 18,750 from 2018-19 onwards. This projected increase to the annual intake of humanitarian entrants will be accommodated by the Humanitarian Settlement Services program and other settlement programs. The current program is set at 13,750 and will increase to 16,250 places in 2017-18, The Prime Minister indicated that a minimum number of humanitarian visas over the next three years would go to ‘displaced people from specific protracted refugee situations’. The PM also indicated that Australia would participate in a US-led multilateral program to resettle Central American refugees from Costa Rica. Any increased humanitarian intake from Central America (i.e. Costa Rica) will be managed through existing referral mechanisms and services. Settlement sites for humanitarian entrants from Central America will be determined by the same considerations given to other cohorts within the Humanitarian Program. The Department is currently undertaking a two-stage procurement process which will re-design the current Humanitarian Settlement Services Program. The new program will allow for fluctuation in humanitarian arrival numbers, and will therefore accommodate the projected increase to the annual intake of humanitarian entrants. Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet 14Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet AGENDA ITEM 6 — Syria/Iraq program update * Reports from HSS providers on the initial settlement progress of Syrians and Iraqis that have arrived under both the additional 12,000 intake and the base humanitarian program have been very positive. * Comment has been received on: — Strong engagement with English language training as the focus of the initial settlement phase, strongly motivated to gain employment and have their skills recognised. — Many have professional and/or trade qualifications. — Strong focus on children gaining a good education. — Strong connection with their faith and the importance of being linked into their faith communities. — Arrivals are expressing a sense of feeling safe and belonging in the community. DIBP summary of agenda item: Update on the flow of visa grants under the Syria/Iraq Initiative. DSS Outcome/s sought from meeting: + Update on settlement progress for Syrian and Iraqi intake. Key issues: + Newly arrived Syrian/traqi refugees are being provided with appropriate support through the Humanitarian Settlement Services program. Background information: Between 1 July 2015 and 4 November 2016, a total of 11,854 Syrian and Iraqis have arrived and are settling in Australia across a mix of metropolitan and regional locations, in all states and territories. Of thege, 6,507 are from the additional 12,000 places. Grant and arrival figures are now available on both the DSS and DIBP websites (updated monthly). Newly arrived Syrianiraqi refugees are being provided with support through the HSS. program. Arrivals have settled across a mix of metropolitan and regional locations, in all states and territories, including Sydney, Melboume, Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, Darwin, Canberra, Logan/Gold Coast, Toowoomba, Geelong, Shepparton, Wagga Wagga, Newcastle, Wollongong and Hobart. Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet 15Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet These locations have settlement services and other supports in place to support new arrivals. To assist with planning, settlement service providers in these locations have been advised of the indicative number that will be settled in their regions. There has been a targeted approach to encourage Syrians and lragis to settle in regional areas where the requisite services are available. This has involved extensive engagement and liaison with local and state governments, settlement services providers and local community groups to plan and prepare for these arrivals, Syrian and Iraqi humanitarian entrants under this program arrive as permanent residents and are eligible to access the same social service benefits, Medicare, English language support, torture and trauma counselling and settlement services, as with other people arriving under the base Humanitarian Program. There has been strong media interest in the intake, however the Department is emphasising that the privacy, safety and security of families is preserved to ensure they are given time to settle in their new communities. DSS and DIBP have been working collaboratively and have agreed on the same reporting parameters for providing monthly figures on our respective websites. DIBP is responsible for providing visa grant numbers and DSS for providing arrival numbers. Data will be uploaded on both DIBP and DSS websites each month at: https:/Iwww.dss.gov.au/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/programs-policy/syrian-and- iragi-refugee-crisis/refugee-settlement-media-hub and http/Avww.border.gov.au/Trav/Refu/response-syrian-humanitarian-orisis. Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet 16Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet AGENDA ITEM 7 — Future development of the Community Proposal Pilot * Our departments have been working together to reduce social security costs attributable to potential entrants under a redeveloped Community Support Program (CSP) through improved targeting of the program. — However, taking this approach may mean that the huranitariai’ \ need of the person is not the sole determinant of their access to Australia's support. | note that the Prime Minister announced in New York that Australia will establish 1,000 places under a Community Support Program. * Atthis stage, | understand that there has not been’a formal decis around whether the numbers for the | re to come from within | \ existing Humanitarian Program or will be in addition to it ¢ |am also interested in hearing how the proposed CSP interacts with the visa reform strategy. DIBP summary of agenda item: Discussion regarding the future development of the Community Proposal Pilot component of the offshore Humanitarian Program. DSS Outcome/s sought from meeting: * Confirm a policy position from DIBP on whether the CSP will be more like the Skilled Migration Program or the Humanitarian Program: = ay that greater savings will be achieved \basis npl le skills and English language | ~ ‘hutthatthis approach undermines the rationale of the Hu Peenietas rogram being based on need and should be quarantined from the existing program. + Confirm whether a separate Dual Track labour market pilot is still under consideration. « Clarification of whether the 1000 places are in addition to the existing \ Humanitarian Program, or part oft Key issues * Under the current settings the CPP model does not reduce costs significantly in the short-term as program entrants continue to have access to high cost government services and payments, such as Medicare, the Adult Migrant English Program and social security payments. ~ Current CPP settings may be encouraging people to use the CPP as a cheaper alternative to the Contributory Parent Visa under the Family Stream of the Migration Program. DIBP need to settle on an approach that balanices the reduction of costait government in a way that does not'prejudice the long-term outcomes of the ‘humanitarian entrants. Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet 7Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet — Anapproach based on maintaining a strong humanitarian focus will see little fiscal advantage to government other than revenue raised from the Visa Application Charge (paid by sponsors). ~ An approach more akin to the Skilled Migration Program will see far greater savings in terms of social welfare costs by restricting entry to the program to people who are unlikely to have a high dependency on social security payments. * Until this fundamental issue is resolved by DIBP it is dificult for DSS to provide further assistance, noting that we have been assisting DIBP with this measure since its inception nearly 4 years ago. * DIBP are also exploring ways to increase the contributions of employers and sponsors, including providing employment or accommodation to CSP entrants. positive outcomes. Background information The CPP has been operating since June 2013, with a cap of 500 places per year taken from within the Humanitarian Program. While front-end settlement costs for CPP entrants have been lower than other Humanitarian entrants, other welfare payments are accessed similarly and Aged Pensions more so. This is likely to reduce overall ‘savings from having a CPP. i 30¢ ikea Aen regarding the ial difficulty in passing necessary legislative amendments to both the Migration Regulations 1999 and Social Security (Assurance of Support) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2007. The Prime Minister announced in New York on 21 September 2016 that Australia will “Create new pathways for refugees to resettle in Australia through the establishment of 1,000 places under a Community Support Program, where communities and businesses can sponsor applications and support new arrivals, leading to better settlement outcomes", In November 2016, Minister Porter wrote back to Minister Dutton, supporting his efforts to identity additional pathways for humanitarian entrants and giving in-principle support to exploring arrangements to reduce the welfare costs of humanitarian entrants under a CSP through a more targeted approach to their selection. Neither AoS nor the question of whether the numbers were within the Humanitarian Program or in addition to it were addressed in the letter. Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet 18Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet Attachment D Draft DSS Comments on DIBP Exposure Drafts Overview DSS supports enhanced collection of biometrics, increased data sharing and proposed improvements to the visa processing system DSS recommends that a range of options to assess the readiness of migrants to integrate into the community should be developed for Government consideration: the proposed approach is not the only possibility. Options would best be considered and evaluated by an Inter Departmental Committee, possibly with access to external experts. Such a mechanism would help to ensure that any option's adopted were transparent and evidence-based, which will be important in ensuring public acceptance of such meesures. DSS notes that further consultation is needed to identify and quantify impacts on other social policy agencies, governments and community groups, The scope and scale of these impacts need to be determined and spelt out so that itis clear where a change in policy is intended and where it is not, the options available to government in this regard and the benefits, risks and implications of each option. DSS strongly advises that imposing a provisional visa regime on humanitarian entrants is likely to be detrimental to their prospects of successful settlement, but if non-negotiable, recommend the time spent on a provisional visa be minimised. Humanitarian entrants’ access to the welfare safety net and other supports should be maintained at current levels under any future errangements to maximise their capacity to integrate successfully. We understand other options need to be explored, but do not support them. ‘The proposal presents the benefits of shifting from a legislative to a policy based framework but should also adequately cover the risks of doing so. It should also explain how the risks and flaws which the legislative approach was designed to address will be prevented from re-emerging with a shift back to a more discretionary approach. DSS is ready to engage further with DIBP to develop detalls of the exposure drafts, * Evidence paper provided coparately. Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet 19Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet Detailed comments Social cohesion risks + Social cohesion is a two-way street — to integrate successfully migrants must feel and be treated equitably, as well as making the effort to learn Enalish, uphold Australian values and participate in society. + They reforms could Undermine Australia’s social cohesion | e factors that may lead to violent extremism by creating a society \where migrants are treated substantially differently to citizens. + The extent to which this two fier system is realised will be largely based on government decisions about access to payments and services that promote integration and mutual obligation, as well as the overarching national narrative + Immediate or early access to payments and programs should be considered where it has the potential to reduce long term costs to Government, such as early intervention programs (e.g. NDIS) or access to capacity development programs such es training end education. + Delayed access would have a particularly detrimental impact on the outcomes of the most vulnerable migrants, such as humanitarian entrants or those who experience domestic violence. + The proposal could better recognise the positive social and economic contributions the vast ‘majority of permanent migrants already make to Australia and better explain how the proposal will encourage them to continue to do so. \ sto i ten agen Social Welfare Payment Risks + This proposal has the potential to fundamentally change access to social security payment access for newly arrived migrants, as access has always been based on a having a permanent visa or citizenship. * An addtional payment waiting period through an imposed provisional visa, without initial access to a social security safety net, could potentially impact on migrants’ longer term settlement outcomes, increase dependency on the welfare system in the longer term, ands \ikely to contravene our international ebigations, pariculerly for vulnerable migrants, hs potential long-term costs of this need to be clearly articulated as part of the proposal. * Any changes to residence qualification under Social Security law will have wider impacts for access fo state or territory government support services. Access to state and territory housing, transport, some health services and disability support services, generally rely on an Australian residence qualification under Social Security law. Those links to other support services need to be teased out and identified anda combined full impact on social welfare needs to be identified. «Any fundamental change to access to the social security system needs to be guided by the six pringples attached, which can be used to support visa reform. Mandatory English Language requirements AS + I Humanitarian entrants are to be included then consideration should be given to their readiness to participate on arrival. Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet 20Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet * Other factors impacting on language acauisition, some of which are beyond the migrant's control, need to be recognised in whatever testing regime is implemented. These include the age of the leamer, first language literacy, ability and capacity to learn a language, and whether the first language is related to English * If higher than Functional English is required of migrants, AMEP should be changed to match, which will require legislative change and additional resourcing, * The draft needs to identify what other support would be provided for migrants to achieve the English proficiency expected, particularly when other activities, such as employment, are also expected of them (eg with transport, childcare or health needs). + The draft should ciarify how the costs of additional tests will be treated, both for migrants and for Budget Integration/permanent residency testing social cohesion outcomes. These arg s of the objectives of integration testing may also help. * It should also recognise that successiul integration depends on the efforts of society and government, as much as those of the migrant. A mutual obligation approach also requires greater responsibility on government to remove obstacles to integration and support settlement (as identified in the PC Inquiry into the Migrant Intake into Australia). + DIBP should consult further with DSS around what ‘sufficiently well integrated’ means and how it can be effectively defined and measured or tested. + Attachment A4 on international comparisons of migrant integration assessments does not explain if/how these assessments are leading to improved social cohesion outcomes: + None of the countries listed as exemplars of testing have better social cohesion than Australia, according to the Social Cohesion Rader’, and only one of the five countries ranked above Australia currently has a citizenship test (Denmark), + DIBP could better articulate how the known concerns with these tests would be addressed under their model. + We would like to see more detail around the proposed outsourcing arrangements for the testing, including likely costs. + We suggest including evidence on the accuracy of psychological testing and its effectiveness in achieving the desired goals. + DSSis concerned that the full consequences of failure to pass the test/s have not been identified, including how non-refoulement obligations would be met in regard to Humanitarian entrants. Other issues * Transitional arrangements are a crucial issue and more detail should be provided. * DSS supports grandfathering or a blended approach and notes that either will have flow on impacts for social security entitlements and access to services, with associated impacts for systems etc. Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet 24Protected: Sensitive - Cabinet * Humanitarian entrants should be exempt or grandfathered. * Transition arrangements should be endorsed by all affected Ministers, not just the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. DSS would expect to be involved in the development of a communications strategy and the discussion paper intended for public consultations. of adit to perma lz eB cca tokse the new Kis be unp \amongst the commi given the targa! ‘numbers likely to be fected and ‘aking into account that al the 2011 Gensus, one in wo Australas was eller bom oversees or had a parent that was born overseas. The interactions of other current migration reforms with the proposal have not been identified such as those currently underway in the family stream for Parent and Partner visas. DSS considers that the visa policy intent statements require further development for presentation to Government. For exemple: + Fraudulent documentation/character concerns are only specified for Humanitarian appicants under the ‘who this visa is not for’ but should apply equally to all visa streams. * Arrangements to support victims of Domestic Violence need to be included (for all visa streams but particularly Family). * Both Family and Humanitarian VPIS' refer to maximising the benefits to Australia or decisions made in the interests of Australia without identifying what defines ‘best interests/maximum benefits’ and at what point in the process and how/by whom are these assessed. DSS has concerns around the content of the Humanitarian VPIS and would like be consulted further on the drafting of this policy statement. The exposure drafts do not clarify a number of key issues raised during the development phase, such as: + the treatment of primary and secondary applicants at test points; + the applicability of one fail, all fail provisions to the integration test; + the treatment of New Zealanders, particularly in terms of access to welfare given their equivalent temporary visa status and new pathway to Permanent residence. Protected: Sensitive -Cabinet 22