If I can just echo Senator Shoebridge’s concern on that matter—it is a very, very important matter. Thank you, Mr Keeley. Is he here? Ah, there he is. I wanted to ask some questions on legal representation, specifically in relation to any reporting you’ve received on the success or otherwise of programs where legal funding has been provided for onshore protection visa claims. You mentioned earlier some of the programs and additional funding provided for legal representation for onshore protection visa applicants. Has the department received any performance reporting from the states or the Attorney‑General’s Department regarding government‑funded legal advice for onshore protection visa applications? Do you have anything you can share with us now? And please feel free to take the remainder on notice, particularly in relation to the impact of that additional funding.
Respondent
Over the last few years, a range of additional funding has been provided to legal providers. This includes funding for protection visa assessments, funding for individuals transitioning from temporary protection visas and safe haven enterprise visas to the Resolution of Status process, and funding for Afghans who arrived after the fall of Kabul. So there have been several streams of legal funding provided. I have a small amount of data here, and I’m happy to take the rest on notice. For the period between 1 January and 30 June 2025, under the protection visa funding provided to Community Legal Services, 1,103 individuals received immigration advice, application assistance and/or visa lodgement services. There were 166 community engagement activities delivered during that period, including face‑to‑face sessions, online meetings, information sessions and social media outreach.
Senator Scarr
Thank you. In relation to that level of engagement, what commentary can you provide? Was it value for money? Was it more than expected? Less than expected? You’ve given us the number of people who received advice, but how do we assess the impact of that relative to the cost? How do we quantify the benefit?
Respondent
One of the key objectives behind the legal assistance funding—within the broader protection visa reforms—was to ensure that people understand the purpose of the protection visa regime. The data I’ve provided does not tell us whether those individuals would otherwise have received assistance, but we are hoping that through the funding, particularly through the community engagement activities, we are reaching more people than would otherwise have been reached. A central aim is ensuring that people understand the purpose of the protection visa system and are not seeking to misuse it. I will take on notice whether we have any additional data or metrics that go specifically to your question.
Senator Scarr
Thank you. Is there a working group involving the Department of Home Affairs and the Attorney‑General’s Department in relation to this funding? Are you working together on assessing its impact?
Respondent
Two things on that. First, yes—we engage closely with the Attorney‑General’s Department, as mentioned earlier. Second, we have extensive engagement with the funded legal providers. Across each of the programs I mentioned, there are regular weekly or fortnightly meetings where the protection visa team engages with those legal providers to understand what is happening on the ground, how the funding is being delivered, and to problem‑solve or troubleshoot as needed.
Senator Scarr
Thank you. To what extent is the department engaging with diaspora groups on these issues? We see spikes from time to time from particular countries—often those with low grant rates. That raises the question, for me, of how effective we are in engaging with diaspora communities: communicating with community leaders, providing education, and managing these issues at that level.
Respondent
One of the measures adopted to address protection visa issues has been a communications campaign targeted at particular diaspora groups. Mr Willard has information he can provide if you have time. But in short, there has been a significant effort. We have also run targeted social media campaigns so people understand the consequences of lodging an unmeritorious claim. Further to what Mr Willard mentioned about the purpose of those strategic communications: we produced more than 260 products—fact sheets, social media content, animations and case study videos—in 19 languages. These were distributed to audiences in 14 culturally and linguistically diverse communities across Australia, through a wide range of channels. We engaged community ambassadors, ran information sessions, worked with CALD media outlets, and used Home Affairs’ social media networks. So it has been an extensive effort to push that information out.
Senator Scarr
Thank you. Could you take on notice a breakdown of that—by country, by language group, and so on. My final small tranche of questions relates to section 198AE statements. I note that the reason typically given for the exemption is simply that it is “in the public interest.” That seems to be the usual wording, without further explanation. But when you look at the subsection, it refers to the giving of reasons for why it is in the public interest.
So I wanted to ask: in relation to these statements, what is the thinking around the level of detail provided in the reasons?
Respondent
Senator, I would need to review those statements again. I agree that they are not a full statement of reasons, but my recollection is that they include more than simply the phrase “in the public interest.” I will need to look again at the specific statements you are referring to.
Senator Scarr
Thank you. If you could review them, that would be appreciated. And could you also take on notice, for each determination made under section 198AE in the last 12 months, the following: – where each individual actually went following the exemption— whether they were removed to their country of origin, removed to a third country, or remained in Australia; – for those who remain in Australia, what their visa status or legal basis is; and – whether, looking at the pattern of 198AE statements—and I use “pattern” neutrally—the department considers that a material proportion of exemptions appear to have been granted simply to facilitate removal elsewhere rather than transfer to a regional processing country. And if that is the case, why is section 198AE required in those circumstances? I am seeking to understand the rationale for its use.
Respondent
I can address that final point now. Under section 198AD, we have a duty to remove any unauthorised maritime arrival to a regional processing country. That is a mandatory duty—unless a 198AE determination is made. Without such a determination, we do not have discretion to remove a person directly to their own country or another country if they are in the migration zone. So, in many cases, a 198AE determination is used when the most appropriate approach is direct removal to another country, rather than transfer to a regional processing country.
