Perth, Aug 20: Australia is home to an estimated 77,700 unlawful non-citizens as of June 30 last year, according to Home Affairs data. The figure has become a political flashpoint in recent weeks, with One Nation leader Pauline Hanson repeatedly raising the issue in public addresses and media appearances, in what many see as a bid to build enough support for a tilt at the prime ministership.
DailyStraits.com put a series of questions to the Department of Home Affairs about how enforced removals actually work in practice. The answers we received were, for the most part, standard non-disclosures — except for one clarification: what “not punitive” actually means when applied to immigration detention.
What we asked, and what we got
Asked who retains a person’s passport during an enforced removal by air — whether it’s handed back before boarding, held by an escort, given to airline staff, or passed to authorities at the destination — a Departmental spokesperson would not say:
“Each removal is assessed and managed according to the individual circumstances of the person concerned. The Department does not comment on the specific operational details of removals as it risks compromising the integrity of the process.”
The same non-answer was repeated when we asked whether restraints can be used during transport, boarding, or the flight itself, and again when we asked what happens if someone resists removal or refuses to board.
On escorts, the Department was willing to confirm the practice exists, without detailing when it is used:
“The removal of an unlawful non-citizen from Australia can be voluntary or involuntary; and they may travel escorted or unescorted, depending on individual circumstances, including security, health and welfare considerations.”
Asked whether Home Affairs prioritises voluntary departure over enforcement — and how Australia’s approach compares with the more visible, high-profile immigration raids and detentions reported recently in the United States — the Department declined to comment on “the internal processes of foreign governments,” but confirmed its general position:
“The Australian Government expects non-citizens to abide by their visa conditions and depart before their visa expires. Non-citizens who do not depart on visa expiry are in breach of Australian immigration laws and subject to detention and removal. Voluntary departure, self-funded or with Return and Reintegration Assistance Program support, is preferred in all cases.”
On whether someone who voluntarily contacts Home Affairs to arrange their own departure risks being detained immediately, the Department did not directly answer, instead pointing overstayers to the Immigration Status Resolution Service for help planning an exit.
The one clarification: “administrative, not punitive”
On background, we asked whether a person can be imprisoned solely for overstaying a visa, or whether detention under the Migration Act is administrative rather than criminal. Here, the Department was direct:
“In Australia, immigration detention is administrative not punitive. It helps manage temporary entry and permanent migration programs.”
In practice, that distinction means someone held in immigration detention is not there as criminal punishment for the overstay itself — detention is framed as a management tool while status is resolved or removal arranged, not a sentence. Critics of the system argue that in practice, the distinction offers little comfort to a person who can still be held, transported under escort, and — per the Department’s own confirmation — potentially restrained during that process.
The political backdrop
The overstayer figure has become central to Hanson’s public messaging. At her first National Press Club address earlier this year, she pointed to Australia’s population growth — now past 27 million — and blamed it in part for pressure on housing, wages and infrastructure. One Nation’s platform calls for deporting 75,000 “illegal migrants,” capping permanent migration at 130,000 a year, and tightening enforcement against visa overstayers, alongside broader cuts to the migration program.
Home Affairs data complicates the picture Hanson presents, however. According to the Department’s own Australia’s Migration Trends, 2024–25 report, of the 77,700 estimated unlawful non-citizens at 30 June 2025, almost one-third were citizens of just three countries — China, Malaysia and the United States — and the Department notes that most unlawful non-citizens overstay for only a short period before departing voluntarily, with movement constantly occurring into and out of the total as people’s status changes. The Department itself cautions that the estimate is inherently difficult to pin down, since people can enter and exit under different documents and identities, and the cohort is constantly shifting.
The Albanese Government, for its part, is reportedly considering deploying more immigration compliance officers into workplaces to track down overstayers, as part of a broader migration overhaul — a sign the political pressure from Hanson and the Coalition is being felt, even as the Government resists calls for deeper cuts to the overall migration program.
Media & PR: editor@dailystraits.com. Copyright 2021–Present DailyStraits.com. All rights reserved.