The Greens have called for a security rating system used in immigration detention centres to be scrapped, following a Guardian Australia investigation that found the tool was “abusive” and “unscientific”.
The Security Risk Assessment Tool – or SRAT – attempts to calculate a detainee’s “risk” for behaviours such as violence, escape or self-harm. But lawyers, immigration insiders and successive government reports say the tool regularly rates people as high risk based on “unwarranted” escalations and errors – with serious consequences.
The tool was developed by Serco, the company that runs Australia’s immigration network. Security risk assessments for each detainee are required under the terms of its contract with the government.
“Serco’s use of algorithms without oversight in immigration detention, with its profound flaws and opacity, is unacceptable and must end immediately,” said Nick McKim, the Greens immigration spokesperson.
“The Australian government and Serco owe the public a full explanation of this practice, which has severe implications for fundamental human rights.”
Human rights commissioner Lorraine Finlay said the AHRC has “consistently expressed concerns” about the SRAT and questioned whether it leads to restrictive measures that “are not necessary, reasonable, or proportionate”.
“The risk rating given to an individual detainee has a significant impact on their treatment while in detention,” she said. “We have serious concerns about whether the SRAT and its current application in immigration detention is fair and accurate, and whether it complies with Australia’s human rights obligations.”
Multiple government reports have also found that SRAT assessments can contain inaccuracies.
In 2020, Nauroze Anees, who spent more than 1,000 days in immigration detention in Australia, brought an action before the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) against Serco over his SRAT.
In October 2023, the OAIC decided his privacy had been interfered with because Serco failed to ensure his personal information “was accurate, up-to-date and complete”, among other breaches of the Privacy Act. A minor injury he sustained while playing football listed him as an “alleged offender”. Another incident was summarised as “detainees involved in assault”, but did not describe who was involved or even when or where it occurred.
Serco was made to apologise and pay him $1,500.
Immigration insiders told Guardian Australia it was easy for detainees to accumulate incidents on their SRATs that added to their risk score.
A 2019 AHRC report found “abusive/aggressive behaviour” incidents were used to calculate a risk rating for “aggression/violence” even though the interaction may not have included any physical aggression or violence.
The commonwealth ombudsman also found in 2020 that detainees with any violent criminal history were assessed as high risk, no matter how much time had passed since the offence or any rehabilitation.
Inaccurate SRATS can have profoundly serious consequences, especially as the population of people in immigration detention has changed to include more people who have had visas cancelled on character grounds due to criminal convictions.
Some detainees who the AHRC found were wrongly assessed as high risk due to inaccurate SRATs were placed in high security compounds where they were assaulted.
Detainees aren’t given the opportunity to challenge their rating, and typically are not even told it exists – a situation the AHRC believes should change.
“We have identified the lack of clarity around the process as being a significant cause of confusion and frustration for individual detainees, and have recommended that people in immigration detention should be informed of their risk rating and of the reasons for this rating, unless doing so would present an unacceptable risk,” Finlay said.
Multiple sources familiar with the system said SRAT ratings rarely go backwards from high to low, even for detainees who have “long periods of perfect behaviour”.
“The major parties must be held accountable for their roles in enabling and perpetuating anti-immigration policies that dehumanise and mistreat those seeking refuge and a new life in Australia,” McKim said.
“Their tacit or explicit support for systems like the SRAT reveals a willingness to undermine basic human dignity and fairness.”
An Australian Border Force spokesperson said: “Australian Border Force officers work tirelessly with contracted service providers to provide a safe and secure Immigration Detention Network for detainees, staff and visitors.”
“The SRAT considers each detainee’s individual circumstances, including consideration of an individual’s capability (e.g. age, frailty, medical condition) and intent (e.g. immigration pathway, behaviour, prevalence of incidents), and is reviewed at regular intervals.”
Serco declined to comment.
