The Department of Immigration (1 Viewer)

[malkin86]

I guess that Senator Vanstone has to work with the policy that the party gave her and she can't really change it - either way that she goes now would be damaging to her reputation. (not that she's squeaky clean, either - remember her as Minister for Community Services, a few years back?)
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s922038.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/16/1060936101890.html?from=storyrhs

 

[JoeysBoy]

Some of the newspaper flicks on Ms Vanstone are very humerous. She just sets herself up for so much crap... sigh

 

[absolution*]

Its about time mandatory detention and refugee policy is softened and compassion and humanity are exercised. This is something that me and my fellow www.greens.org.au colleagues have been fighting for for a long time. I support Georgiou but further steps will be necessary.

1. Australia is entitled to protect its borders and its territorial integrity in ways that are consistent with its domestic and international legal obligations, including its human rights obligations. It is entitled to regulate or prevent the entry of aliens into Australia provided that it does not violate its domestic and international legal obligations in doing so.



2. Australia will accord to refugees and asylum seekers all their rights and entitlements under relevant international law, including under the Refugee Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Torture Convention.



3. No refugee or asylum seeker will be subjected to punishment, mistreatment or other human rights violation to deter others from seeking asylum in Australia.



4. Refugees and asylum seekers who are intercepted on their way to Australia will be treated with respect for their dignity and not be subjected to physical violence or threats of physical violence.



5. Refugees and asylum seekers who are intercepted on their way to Australia will not be diverted forcibly to a third country but brought to Australia to have their claims processed in accordance with international law. Under no circumstances will a refugee or asylum seeker be diverted forcibly to a country that is not a party to the Refugee Convention or to the major human rights treaties.



6. Conditions will not be attached to Australian aid funds to require or encourage countries to intercept refugees and asylum seekers on the way to Australia or to accept refugees and asylum seekers from Australia for detention or processing. Australian aid funds will not be diverted from development projects to underpin the detention and processing of refugees and asylum seekers in other countries.



7. Refugees and asylum seekers will not be detained arbitrarily. In particular, there will be no indefinite mandatory detention of refugees or asylum seekers. No refugee or asylum seeker should be detained beyond an initial processing period unless individually assessed, subject to judicial review, as requiring to be detained on grounds of public health, public safety or public security.



8. No refugee or asylum seeker child will be detained except as a last resort and then for the shortest possible period of time. The parents and siblings of a child, or in their absence other family members who may be with the child, will ordinarily be released with the child to provide for the child’s care and wellbeing, unless their release would raise significant risks in relation to public health, public safety or public security.



9. In all decisions affecting a child the best interests of the individual child shall be a paramount consideration. Children are entitled to have their views heard and taken into account, according to their ages and maturity, in all decisions affecting them.



10. Any refugee or asylum seeker in detention is entitled to be treated humanely with respect for his or her human dignity. The standards applicable in detention will be at least no less than those to which convicted prisoners are entitled.



11. Asylum seekers who are accepted as refugees within the Refugees Convention are entitled to family reunion. Family reunion entitlements will extend at least to spouses and children and to parents and siblings who are dependent on the refugee. In the case of a refugee child, family reunion will extend without qualification to the child’s parents or, if the child has no parent, then to adult family members or others who might have responsibility for the care of the child.



12. Asylum seekers accepted as refugees will be accepted for permanent re-settlement. They will be entitled to all the benefits to which permanent residents are entitled.

Vandstone has to go, hey hey, ho ho/ ..1 DOWN WITH TEH RIGHT

 

[Generator]

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1390608.htm

Senate to set up inquiry into immigration system
AM - Monday, 13 June , 2005 08:08:00
Reporter: Louise Yaxley


PETER CAVE: It's shaping up as a crucial week for the Australian immigration system.

Today the Prime Minister will negotiate again with the Victorian MP, Petro Georgiou, and a small group of backbenchers pushing for significant changes to immigration detention.

They want more change before dropping plans to introduce two private members bills that they say would make the system more compassionate.

But at the same time, the Senate is expected to set up an inquiry into immigration and the Government will receive the Palmer inquiry with its own strong recommendations.

Louise Yaxley reports.

LOUISE YAXLEY: Tomorrow the Senate's expected to vote for a wide-ranging inquiry into the Immigration system.

Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett is quite confident it will be set up as one of the last acts of the non-government controlled Senate.

ANDREW BARTLETT: Well, it's quite clear that not only is there a lot of problems within the Immigration Department that have come to light, but that there's a lot more that will come to light, and what I really would like to see is a royal commission of course, as many people would, because that would give them a chance to get to the bottom of the whole sorry mess, but in the absence of that, I think the Senate does need to look at providing a mechanism for more of the information to get into the public arena.

We only have two sitting weeks left before the end of June when the Government then takes over the Senate, so if we do want to get an inquiry underway, then this is the time to do it.

LOUISE YAXLEY: That Senate inquiry would pre-empt a report by the former Federal police commissioner, Mick Palmer, which is due to go to the Government this week.

Mr Palmer has used the Director of the New Zealand Mental Health Service, Dr David Chaplow, as a consultant to his inquiry, which is understood to recommend wide-ranging changes to the treatment mentally ill people in detention.

Mr Palmer's work is welcomed by Senator Bartlett and the Labor Party's Laurie Ferguson. But both say a royal commission is what was really needed.

Mr Ferguson says Mr Palmer should have had much more authority.

LAURIE FERGUSON: This guy has not got the proper powers in regards to forcing the attendance of witnesses, stopping self incrimination of witnesses, subjecting witnesses to libel, all those deficiencies are there. We were pushing for a royal commission, but as I say, we won't quibble over it – there is some progress here.

LOUISE YAXLEY: The Prime Minister is personally involved in reshaping the immigration system. This evening in Canberra, he again meets Liberal backbenchers Petro Georgiou, Judi Moylan, Bruce Baird and Russell Broadbent to try to head off two Private Members bills.

AMunderstands while Mr Howard has offered some concessions, the group believes there's still a considerable way to go before Mr Georgiou would drop his plan to put the legislation that he calls a bill for an act of compassion.

Labor's Laurie Ferguson says he's been keeping in touch with Mr Georgiou and urges him not to give in lightly.

LAURIE FERGUSON: I very briefly touched base with him on Friday. This is at a fairly delicate stage. It's not his job to tell me exactly, you know, their exchanges, but we've had brief discussions over the last week, and we remain very positive about trying to work with Petro if they don't cut a deal.

There's always the danger that Howard and Petro will cut a deal. And the question for Petro is, when out in front there, he can't afford now to basically take a few crumbs off the table. He would have to gain very significant advantages, very significant change, to justify backing down on this bill.

LOUISE YAXLEY: The Immigration Department's problems run so deep that less than three weeks ago the head of the Department, Bill Farmer, apologised in a Senate Estimates committee.

BILL FARMER: We profoundly regret what has happened in some cases, and it's distressing and unacceptable that our actions have in respects fallen so short of what we would want and what we understand the Australian people expect. We are deeply sorry about that.

LOUISE YAXLEY: Today, Bill Farmer has received a Queens Birthday honour, recognising his service to the community through contributions to Australia's international relations and to immigration, security, border systems and Indigenous service delivery.

PETER CAVE: Louise Yaxley reporting from Canberra.

This week should be interesting.

 

[james_chappo]

I'm waiting to see Liberal's delaying tactics. I don't think the bill will pass - unfortunately

 

[LaraB]

Thats a lie.

Not everyone is a signatory to the refugee convention. Regardless of whether they are a legit refugee they will be sent back to their original country.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty2ref.htm

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm

Australia extremely good at breaching articles 31 and 33.

It is interesting to note that we withdrew our reservations to the convention :rolleyes. On of the only international convetions that we have no reservations to.

yeah exactly....

i think that yes, people shouldn't just be allowed to rock up whenever they feel like it...but at the same time a lot of them don't have an option given political situations, warfare etc.... a lot of the refugees are refugees coz they can't afford to migrate properly or because of their country's situation... i don't think logically many, if any just decide to rock up in Aus the way JonathanA represented...

I think they should be 'detained' i gues..although that's probably not th ebest word.... but not in the conditions they are currently... when we did an assignment on Woolley's case was interesting to read the governtment's so called "report" on the conditions of detention centres vs the HREOC's reports - according to the HREOC and all these independent journo's, the kids aren't given a proper education which was one of the govt's big claims and the guards treat em like crap and a lot who have family or friendsd who are aussie citizens were refused to be allowed to see them for no reason even though they're meant to be allowed to

i think in theory kids shouldnt be detained, but then again, there isn't much of an option coz if their parents are detained they don't really have any way of supporting themselves or anything... same thing was raised in the abov ecase coz if you release kids, legally they'd just be returned to the detention icentres once they turn 18 so it doesn't really solve anything

will be interesting to see how Badriae's case turns out...is due in court in september i think?

best solution would be to help fix up their situation in their country of origin to start with...then again..that's never going to happen coz that would be the expensive and humanitarian and unselfish thing to do lol....

 

[LaraB]

No of course it wont pass.

John Howard knows a tough on boat people (while illegals and real terror 'suspects' ie Habib come through sydney airport) wins him votes in the burbs.

haha yeah.... all cause people paranoid that they'll lose "aussie" jobs to them or that they're terrorists who'll come and blow them up...

it's so silly..although if i'd been unemployed for years and under-educated and seen people newly arriving to the country in jobs i could do and using up infrastructure and resources and stuff that was funded by taxes etc i would probably be pissed off too...

 

[frog12986]

The whole policy is based around risk and consequences. The fact exists that if a terrorist network gained simple access into the country through means such as a refugee boat and a damaging attack resulted, then there would be an immense piblic uproar over the governments leniency and inaction with regards to asylum seekers and any associated risks.

Whilst in the current situation with the current policy, there is a vocal minority who deplore such harsh screening and rigid access measures in regards to rights/civil liberties. In a sense it is a catch 22 and at the moment the government is opting for the policy that will be least harmful to its credibility.
Sceptics may believe that a terrorist attack is highly unlikely, which may be the case, however the moment that the governement changes the processes that are in place, it increases the chances of terrorist access greatly, an increased risk that any conscionable person would not permit. At present, about 80% of those who enter our shores are in fact legitimate refugees. However, as long as that dubious 20% remains, there will always be a 'risk' that there may be further entrances of terrorist threats onto our shores.

Now this isn't to say that ithe policy may be 'inhumane' and the like, but what it is saying is that as the government is responsible for controlling the flows of people into and out of our country, then it must be accountable for any mishaps that may occur. If an attack or similar was to occur as a result of inadequate screening and with the intention of 'speedy' processing, then the ramifications for the govermments credibility would be disastrous. It it obviously something that the government will endeavour to prevent....

 

[LaraB]

The whole policy is based around risk and consequences. The fact exists that if a terrorist network gained simple access into the country through means such as a refugee boat and a damaging attack resulted, then there would be an immense piblic uproar over the governments leniency and inaction with regards to asylum seekers and any associated risks.

Whilst in the current situation with the current policy, there is a vocal minority who deplore such harsh screening and rigid access measures in regards to rights/civil liberties. In a sense it is a catch 22 and at the moment the government is opting for the policy that will be least harmful to its credibility.
Sceptics may believe that a terrorist attack is highly unlikely, which may be the case, however the moment that the governement changes the processes that are in place, it increases the chances of terrorist access greatly, an increased risk that any conscionable person would not permit. At present, about 80% of those who enter our shores are in fact legitimate refugees. However, as long as that dubious 20% remains, there will always be a 'risk' that there may be further entrances of terrorist threats onto our shores.

Now this isn't to say that ithe policy may be 'inhumane' and the like, but what it is saying is that as the government is responsible for controlling the flows of people into and out of our country, then it must be accountable for any mishaps that may occur. If an attack or similar was to occur as a result of inadequate screening and with the intention of 'speedy' processing, then the ramifications for the govermments credibility would be disastrous. It it obviously something that the government will endeavour to prevent....

yeah that's what i meant... as in what they're trying to achieve is necessary but their methods could be better... either that or the Govt shouldn't go signining international covenants that they're not going to keep...

 

[paper cup]

Today In admin law one guy said that his gf and others at cofa were making t shirts for their friends that stated accross the front

'Australian citizen - do not deport'

OK I definitely want one of those

 

[james_chappo]

I'd pay for one of those shirts =)

 

[paper cup]

One of the greatest ideas for a T shirt.

are you planning to release any
'I love Asquithian cos he is the greaterest' Tshirts any time soon?

 

[withoutaface]

I want an "I'm Liberal, so don't even try me" shirt for uni.

 

[LaraB]

I'd pay for one of those shirts =)

i was just thinking hmm..awesome t shirt but i wouldn't buy one coz im anglo and im not thus a possible 'terrorist' or illegal immigrant lol..but then i think..hmm...Cornelia Rau.... lol

 

[LaraB]

We generally only seem to care when we unlawfully lock up a white Australian.

We generally don't give a shit if the person who is unlawfully locked up is not white.

or if you're a kid... lately seems like children are getting a lot of attention after Woolley and Badriae and that kid from Blacktown High and stuff

 

[Generator]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Palmers-immigration-report-delayed/2005/06/15/1118645865158.html

Palmer's immigration report delayed
June 15, 2005 - 8:00PM


A report by former federal police chief Mick Palmer from a closed-door inquiry into immigration blunders will be delayed by a fortnight and there is no guarantee it will ever be made public.

Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone met Mr Palmer today to discuss progress on his inquiry, which was due to report on Friday.

"Mr Palmer has advised me that he is this week providing sections of his report to people identified in it, to give them an opportunity to respond before he completes the report," she said.

"Mr Palmer expects that process will take approximately two weeks, at which time he will finalise his report and present it to the government."

Senator Vanstone received a draft copy of the report today but said Mr Palmer was not in a position to submit his final report until he had received and considered responses from those identified in it.

"Although I am anxious to receive the final report as soon as possible, it is important that natural justice be provided to those people identified in it," she said.

The minister said she would not make a decision on whether to publicly release the report until she had received it in full.

"I have previously given a commitment that Mr Palmer's recommendations and findings would be released publicly," she said.

"Once I receive the report I will consider whether the whole report is appropriate for public release.

"I am conscious of the need, despite media and community interest in the report, to protect the privacy of individuals, in particular, Ms Rau."

Mr Palmer has been investigating the detention of mentally ill Australian woman Cornelia Rau, the wrongful deportation of Australian citizen Vivian Alvarez and 201 other cases of possible wrongful detention.

AAP

It's as though there is a force trying to sweep this entire debacle under the carpet.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

We generally only seem to care when we unlawfully lock up a white Australian.

We generally don't give a shit if the person who is unlawfully locked up is not white.

That's not true, I think there is disproportionate attention given to aboriginals whenever they're locked up, with many people claiming it is an injustice and racist.

 

[somechick]

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.

i dont think you understand the severity of the humanitarian crisis in these detention centres. read a book called 'borderlands' or 'borlderline' (something like that).
of course every country has the right to choose who enters their country but then again who gives those countries the right to bomb the other country and expect that they wont ask for help?

solutions aren't going to come by just simply saying 'no' and thats it. locking people up, treating them like aliens or another species isnt going to prevent much. people are still going to ask for help, and those wars weren't really helping.

 

[walrusbear]

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.

actually that's totally wrong

refugees are not refugees by choice

 

[walrusbear]

Its only incorrect for the ones that are actually legit refugees. His statement seems to assume that all of them are not legit as they are 'chosen' to unconventionally come.

If they are legit refugees then they had no choice in the matter. It is only those who are not legit refugees that have 'chosen' an 'unconventional' way of coming to Australia.

i was under the impression that all but a handful were legitimate?