The Department of Immigration (2 Viewers)

[Generator]

Something that should be discussed, I think.

201 known cases of wrongful detention have been recognised and their emergence has lead to calls for the Minister to be sacked and for a judicial inquiry to be held. The Palmer report (an inaqequate investigative measure originally meant to deal with the Cornelia Rau case) is due within a month and is expected to recommend judicial powers be extended so that the entire matter may be investigated in full.

A number of Coalition backbenchers are pressing forward with a bid to change the migration act in a manner that apparently retains the structure known as mandatory detention yet changes it slightly so that it is more of a 'targeted detention' process. The debate will take place next week.

Any thoughts on one or the other?

 

[heybraham]

Something that should be discussed, I think.

201 known cases of wrongful detention have been recognised and their emergence has lead to calls for the Minister to be sacked and for a judicial inquiry to be held. The Palmer report (an inaqequate investigative measure originally meant to deal with the Cornelia Rau case) is due within a month and is expected to recommend judicial powers be extended so that the entire matter may be investigated in full.

A number of Coalition backbenchers are pressing forward with a bid to change the migration act in a manner that apparently retains the structure known as mandatory detention yet changes it slightly so that it is more of a 'targeted detention' process. The debate will take place next week.

Any thoughts on one or the other?

the liberals are cunts. especially that fat bitch (i can't be bothered to give notice to her stupid name). john howard is an uncreative leader.

lol i'm joking. but then again humour always has an element of truth

 

[Generator]

Lowbrow political humour is hardly funny, chief.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I support the rebel liberal back benchers... I think it's time for change, I'm willing to admit I was wrong when it came to mandatory detention.

Howard won't change his mind, more people would probably prefer a harder-line approach then a softer one...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

ACA Poll (78% of Australians don't think Mandatory Detention is too harsh).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Oh come on you can have Bias but 78%?

 

[Generator]

Well that's one of the biggest oxymorons I've heard for a long time - and I should know, i've made a fair few. why support something you don't believe in?

I'm sorry, when was this? I've never heard of Mandatory Detention being popular ... but then agian, we might be getting Corby-itis and only getting half the story. But I still fail to see how locking people up in a facility devoid of the most basic human rights could be considered "popular" ...

The 2001 election for the 'illegal' immigrant/detention process as a whole, Argonaut. As for the first point, not all members of government believe in each policy as it is in its public form, be they a recent backbencher or a senior minister.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Yes, cabinet members are especially restrained and must keep their mouths shut, unequivocally approving any policy the brain-room spits out

 

[Jonathan A]

Something that should be discussed, I think.

201 known cases of wrongful detention have been recognised and their emergence has lead to calls for the Minister to be sacked and for a judicial inquiry to be held. The Palmer report (an inaqequate investigative measure originally meant to deal with the Cornelia Rau case) is due within a month and is expected to recommend judicial powers be extended so that the entire matter may be investigated in full.

A number of Coalition backbenchers are pressing forward with a bid to change the migration act in a manner that apparently retains the structure known as mandatory detention yet changes it slightly so that it is more of a 'targeted detention' process. The debate will take place next week.

Any thoughts on one or the other?

Mandatory detention - I don't believe there is anything wrong with it. The fact is people have chosen to entert this country unconventionally, there should be not ifs and buts about it. If we as a nation are to be serious about preventing terrorism and knowing what's going on, then we should primarly control who goes past our borders. The backbencher liberals are seeking a change to the administrative process, I am more inclined to follow the Prime Minister who is not rushing into any changes without exploring what needs to be done.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

Amanda has probably been less tough on detention than that last evil immigration guy was (Ruddock, that's right isn't it?)

But I think there should be a full inquiry in to this situation. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Mandatory detention is wrong. How come other countries survive without it? Australia's support of this policy shows the innate racism that is still present in our culture, no matter how much we deny it.

 

[Jonathan A]

Amanda has probably been less tough on detention than that last evil immigration guy was (Ruddock, that's right isn't it?)

But I think there should be a full inquiry in to this situation. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Mandatory detention is wrong. How come other countries survive without it? Australia's support of this policy shows the innate racism that is still present in our culture, no matter how much we deny it.

How are we racist? The asylum seekers are the ones who turn up the incorrect way. The fact is, a so-called refugee isn't so when they travel half way around the world, bypass at leat 50 safe-havens and then cry when reaching our border, despite knowing the tough stance the government takes and has taken for over 13 years on immigration.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Amanda has probably been less tough on detention than that last evil immigration guy was (Ruddock, that's right isn't it?)

Poor Ruddock. Forced into his ruthless Gollum-like ways.

If only the wets had prevailed, who knows what would have become of him.

 

[Rorix]

Doesn't indefinite mandatory detention have bipartisan support?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

That would be a terrible move by Labor.
Any government that seems "soft" on border security will never win an australian election at least for the next 25 years.

 

[Generator]

That would be a terrible move by Labor.
Any government that seems "soft" on border security will never win an australian election at least for the next 25 years.

I don't think that a more humane approach would indicate that a government is going 'soft' (that's from my own point of view, though). Mandatory detention may be needed, but it becomes a farce when the period of detention for all intents and purposes becomes indefinite.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I definately support a softer approach, my personal approach would be:
- Take them in.
- Give them medical support.
- Do a background check (within 7 days)
- If something comes up, hold them of course.
- If nothing comes up, release them into the community (after given them proper training/skills to deal with Australian life), perhaps requiring them to go to the closest <instert government agency> once a week/fortnight to fill out a form.

Or if we have to keep people locked up (which I feel under the current political climate is more than likely a reality), make all detention centres more communal, giving each person a real "house" and a small little asylum seeker community to live in for the short ammount of time (year-2years max) while they're in limbo.

 

[townie]

no question mandatory detention should be changed, but to abolish it would be political suicide. i actually completley agree with NTB

either: brief processing and check period, then released as if on parole from prison, preferably in areas that could use some extra labour.

-or make detention centres fare more humane, like ultra-minimum security prisons, not maximum security ones.

 

[Generator]

*bump*

This mild bump is worthwhile given the severity of the crisis.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Meet-the-barcode-kids/2005/05/30/1117305563811.html

The picture on the front page of today's smh is/was quite graphic.

 

[withoutaface]

I think that adoption (or at least short term fostering) to outside families should be allowed (if it isn't already), but releasing both women and their children without processing would mean that many would simply get pregnant before leaving their country of origin so as to exploit a loophole.

As for the feasibility of speeding up processing, it would be nice if it could happen, but I won't pretend that I have any idea on whether it's possible.

EDIT: NTB's solution sounds like it's probably the best approach, though.

 

[Generator]

Rau's citizenship suspected months earlier.