|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 16 October 2005
|
Project SafeCom
|
Oct 15, 2005 19:08 PDT
|
Project SafeCom News and Updates 16 October 2005
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
¤ - In this Edition - ¤
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
1. Deflating terror's bubble
2. Australian child rights condemned by UN
3. A wallet full of censorship
4. Detainees to cast off from Nauru
5. A policy of suffering rather than success
6. Howard claims Nauru an 'outstanding success'
7. Praise for 'end of Pacific Solution'
8. PM says Nauru centre was a success
9. £15m-a-year bill to hold two refugees
10. Government defends deportation payments
11. Govt defends detention funding bonuses
12. Greens angry at deportation bonus claims
13. Bonus outrage
14. Ruddock denies deportation 'bonuses'
15. Govt faked Serb's travel documents: ALP
16. Call for probe into fake ID claims
17. Serbians were 'fleeing persecution'
18. No detention conspiracy - Vanstone
19. Residency for cricketer, family
20. Gerry Georgatos on Australia's "refugee crisis"
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| This is the Project SafeCom Newsletter - also published
-|| as the RAC-VIC Newsletter (Racvicnews) since July 2004 by agreement
-|| with RAC Victoria, which endorsed that their news service be
-|| managed by Project SafeCom. More information about us below.
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
===================
1. Deflating terror's bubble
===================
The Age
Federal politics
By Michelle Grattan
October 16, 2005
It was an exquisite prick of the hubris balloon. Less than 24 hours after
the Howard Government insisted a Senate inquiry into its sweeping
anti-terrorism legislation would be confined to a week - less in real
parliamentary time - it was infuriated by the pre-emptive release of the
draft bill.
ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope's website posting of the legislation on
Friday won't affect the Senate inquiry's length, but it does mean the
debate about the bill's nitty gritty gets under way much earlier than the
Government planned. It had intended to unveil it in the week starting
October 31.
A hallmark of the fourth-term Howard Government is control. Yet a
characteristic of the months since the election has been regular breakdowns
of control. Last week was classic.
Not only did Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce cross the floor over
competition legislation, but the tactics employed by him, Labor and the
minor parties to enable the amendment he supported to be carried left a
surprised Government flat-footed.
Then the Opposition embarrassed the Government by revealing it had ordered
a rewrite of its industrial relations advertising brochure, leading to tens
of thousands of booklets being pulped at considerable cost.
Stanhope's defiant action prompted the Government (through calls from
bureaucrats, including the head of the PM's department, Peter Shergold) to
try unsuccessfully to get the draft bill taken down.
Of course, Stanhope refused. Besides, as soon as it was posted, interested
parties started downloading. There was no chance of throwing the cloak of
secrecy back over the legislation.
Anyway, what legitimate grounds does the Government have for its demand?
Absolutely none. The bill's a "work in progress", the Government says.
Well, some exposure will give a wider range of interested parties the
chance to contribute to the progress of a work that appals many civil
libertarians. Howard argued yesterday that it was important governments
"should have the capacity to talk to each other in confidence". Perhaps -
but it's even more important that governments don't sign away people's
liberties willy nilly under pressure of being seen to be tough with terrorists.
It is outrageous that the Government wanted to leave so little time between
the planned date of release and the passage of the legislation, which it
intends to get through Parliament before Christmas.
That it has such scant regard for the processes of democratic discussion on
a piece of legislation that tramples comprehensively on people's rights
makes you worry about how it would use the law itself.
The breadth of what can be done under the proposals is extraordinary. And
so is the potential for innocents, or semi-innocents, to be caught up in
the net.
People over whom police obtain a control order - terror suspects or those
who have trained with a terrorist organisation - can be detained for up to
a year, effectively under house arrest.
That they can be forced to wear a tracking device is almost the least of
it. They can be stopped from making phone calls, prevented from working,
and told where to be when. Remember, these people have not been charged
with an offence.
We haven't heard much of Mamdouh Habib for a while, but his background of
allegedly training with a terrorist organisation means he potentially could
be the subject of a control order.
Labor MP and former justice minister Duncan Kerr says the control orders
invite comparisons with the way Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi
is detained.
Despite the built-in judicial review (including the issuing of the order by
a court), Kerr says: "We have moved an awfully long way to licensing the
state control of the individual that we have condemned in totalitarian
regimes."
John North, president of the Law Council of Australia, raises the risk that
a government could use the legislation's provision for preventive detention
of people without charge (two days under federal law, two weeks under
complementary state law) as a precautionary device to sweep up people and
minimise security dangers when, for example, there is a major conference
attended by foreign leaders.
The preventive detention section codifies the circumstances in which police
may shoot to kill. It says in part that a police officer may not do
anything to kill or grievously injure a fleeing person unless the officer
reasonably believes that it is necessary to do so "to protect life or to
prevent serious injury" and there is no other way to stop the person.
The Greens and Democrats have jumped on this, with Bob Brown saying it
would "allow a London-type wrongful death". The Government says the section
simply reflects what is already in the Crimes Act. But critics say this
draft does not make it clear that the risk posed by the fleeing person must
be an imminent one, and Brown notes that the need for a warning has been
qualified with the words "if practicable".
"The result is that a fleeing suspect may be shot where an officer has not
been able to first call for surrender," Brown said yesterday. There is also
the further point that the people being preventively detained are not
people who are being arrested.
While most debate has been around the sections on control orders and
preventive detention, other parts of the bill also raise concerns.
Take the section "financing a terrorist". A person commits an offence by
intentionally giving funds to someone (directly or indirectly) and being
"reckless as to whether the other person will use the funds to facilitate
or engage in a terrorist act". The penalty for this? Life imprisonment.
Surely an excessively long sentence.
Then there is the wide definition of what it means for an organisation to
"advocate" the carrying out of a terrorist act. This includes where "the
organisation directly praises the doing of a terrorist act".
"Praise" is a very wide and fuzzy concept. To say nothing of the fact that,
if we think back, some of what were in fact terrorist acts have been viewed
in a somewhat different light historically - for example, the struggles of
black South Africans who not infrequently used terrorist tactics.
At a practical level, does the ban on "praise" catch radical Muslim
teachers whose messages "praise" terrorist acts? Is this law going to be
enforced against them, and mightn't that be counterproductive?
The sedition section is drastic. A "seditious intention" includes urging
someone to "attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, to procure a change to
any matter established by law in the Commonwealth". Where would that leave
illegal sit-ins?
It's also seditious to "promote feelings of ill will or hostility between
different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of
the Commonwealth". The Government stresses the sedition section is an
updating of the present law and crimes must be linked to violence.
The offence outlawing the giving of assistance "by any means whatever" to
an organisation or country against which the Australian Defence Force is
fighting (penalty - seven years in prison) has a "good faith" let-out
designed to cover political debate (as well as humanitarian assistance).
But there's a lot of subjectivity involved.
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock yesterday elaborated: "There is no prospect
of people being found guilty of offences in relation to participating in
robust debate on political issues. But there is a concern that robust
debate should not be seen as encouragement to people to carry out acts
which will endanger other people's lives."
He said Australian troops' safety should not be put at risk by people who
might say, "I don't think the Australian Government should be in Iraq,
therefore you should attack our troops." Would the law, however, catch
much-less-explicit statements? Ruddock yesterday could not think of a
single example of a comment that might have come under the section relating
to Australian troops.
The legislation's premature release will give, in particular, the Muslim
community a chance to react. It was significant that Stanhope used the
occasion of a speech at a mosque to announce he was making the draft public.
He invited Canberra Muslims to give their views, "in particular, the extent
to which they believe these laws may lead to racial profiling".
"The onus should not be on ordinary, law-abiding people to prove that they
are not a danger to the community, yet that seems to be the current focus.
The question being asked of Australian Muslims is what they can do to
assuage the fears of the rest of us. The focus ought to be what the rest of
us can do to address the causes of disaffection."
Behind closed doors Liberal backbenchers have been talking to Ruddock about
the detail of the legislation. There have been a couple of meetings already
and the discussion is not finished.
Stanhope's action has put premiers on the spot to scrutinise the detail
closely. Queensland's Peter Beattie yesterday was concerned that a
reference to the role of the Queensland public interest monitor did not
appear. Howard, terse at the disclosure, said the legislation, when finally
presented, would "reflect the agreement" he and state and territory leaders
had made. "No more, no less."
It's easy for sceptics to argue that opponents of the anti-terrorism laws
are exaggerating their potential misuse and downplaying all the judicial
safeguards. This overlooks history and human nature. This Government's
treatment of asylum seekers, and its patent disregard for the rights of
David Hicks and Habib, do not encourage giving it the benefit of the doubt.
There's not much reason to think Labor would be better. If the laws are
there, the probability is they'll eventually be used to the hilt.
The imperative is to get the balances right when the legislation is passed.
With the Government able to get its way in the Senate, it has the absolute
whip hand. But at least, thanks to Stanhope, the cautionary voices now have
a little better chance to be heard and more weight will be put on small-"l"
liberals in the Coalition to act as watchdogs.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/michelle-grattan/deflating-terrors-bubble/2005/10/15/1128796745073.html
===============================
2. Australian child rights condemned by UN
===============================
Sydney Morning Herald
October 13, 2005 - 5:24PM
The United Nations has expressed grave concerns about Australia's
immigration detention policies and the plight of indigenous young people in
a damning report on children's rights.
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child met in Geneva last
month to consider developments in children's rights in Australia since the
mid-1990s.
While new anti-terror measures, corporal punishment and juvenile justice
raised eyebrows at the meeting, the committee reserved its strongest
criticism for detention and indigenous health issues.
It expressed serious concerns that, despite a recent softening of
immigration detention policies, children were still automatically detained
if they were found to be in the country illegally.
The fact that children were also held in "very poor" conditions harmed
their physical and mental health, while a lack of regular and independent
monitoring of the system was also a concern.
The committee recommended automatic detention be overturned, that it be
used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time, and that
conditions in detention centres be improved.
But it also found major discrepancies between indigenous and non-indigenous
health and education levels.
"The committee remains concerned at indigenous children malnutrition and
under-nutrition compared with over-nutrition, overweight and obesity at
national level (sic)," it said in its report.
Indigenous children were over-represented in the juvenile justice system
and were more likely to drop out of school and have "serious difficulties"
with education, it said.
Defence for Children International Australia president Judy Cashmore said
Australia fared poorly when compared with nations such as New Zealand and
Canada.
"I think we probably fair more poorly in regards to indigenous children and
asylum-seeking children," she said.
"There's also some indications ... that these conditions for indigenous
children are not getting better. They're getting worse," Dr Cashmore told AAP.
She said the UN report should be used as a tool to reduce the levels of
family violence and increase the work of child protection agencies, and
also to revive the reconciliation agenda.
But Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said asking Australia to change
immigration detention policies for children was a political move.
"I'm always interested in those people who argue that it is in the best
interests of children to be separated from their parents by requiring that
they not be detained when their parents will be," Mr Ruddock told AAP.
"I think when people make a statement like that they're making a political
statement."
He ruled out changing the government's immigration detention policy on that
basis.
"But do we want to see children detained? Preferably not."
The UN committee also said resources for Australia's human rights watchdog,
HREOC, should be boosted following recent substantial funding cuts.
But Mr Ruddock said funding decisions were the preserve of the federal
government.
He said he was concerned about health and education levels among indigenous
children, but said they could not be fixed overnight.
"That, obviously, is an issue that worries any well-meaning Australian and
if there was a way in which you could click your fingers and redress it
overnight, we would."
Australia became a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
in 1990.
Australia is expected to next report to the committee in January, 2008.
© 2005 AAP
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Australian-child-rights-condemned-by-UN/2005/10/13/1128796643992.html
====================
3. A wallet full of censorship
====================
by David Marr
Sydney Morning Herald
October 10, 2005
Page 1 of 13
Expensive though they are, the arts must get more funds, writes David Marr.
Every Tuesday morning of sitting weeks, government MPs gather in a long
white room on the ground floor of Parliament House. These joint party
meetings rarely give the Prime Minister any trouble. But on March 15 this
year, the meeting broke into open revolt. Men and women - on the whole,
decent men and women - who had made no fuss when Howard trapped refugees on
the deck of the Tampa and sent troops to invade Iraq - had him on the mat
over the fate of three orchestras.
ARTICLE OVER 13 pages:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/arts/a-wallet-full-of-censorship/2005/10/09/1128796402971.html
=========================
4. Detainees to cast off from Nauru
=========================
The Age
By Michael Gordon
National Editor
October 14, 2005
FOUR years in offshore detention is about to end for almost all the
remaining asylum seekers on Nauru after Amanda Vanstone decided yesterday
to bring them to Australia.
The Immigration Minister will announce today that 25 of the last 27 asylum
seekers will leave the cash-strapped island, possibly within 10 days, after
13 were found to be refugees.
The decision means the centrepiece of the Government's Pacific Solution —
processing asylum seekers offshore — will no longer hold significant
numbers of asylum seekers, though the Government intends to "re-activate"
the two camps if people smuggling resumes.
The decision follows a review of the cases and a report by independent
experts, who warned that urgent action was required to prevent any further
deterioration in the mental health of those in the offshore processing camp.
"I've made the decision today that that's what we've got to do — and it
will be done as soon as it can be," Senator Vanstone told The Age last night.
"I think this is a very sensible and pragmatic resolution, and it is
consistent with the Government's more flexible approach to managing a
complex case load."
Migration agent Marion Le, who has represented the Nauru asylum seekers,
was overwhelmed by the outcome. "I'm concerned, of course, about some of
the people because they are very sick, but I really welcome what the
minister has done, and I do want to thank her for it," she said last night.
"It's a solution that has been a long time coming. For those who have been
granted refugee status, it's the right decision."
Many who will come to Australia were interviewed when The Age became the
first media outlet to get unfettered access to the camp in April. Many said
then they had all but given up hope of a positive outcome, and were
surviving by taking sedatives.
The group includes 13 Iraqis, eight Afghans, one Iranian, two Bangladeshis
and a Pakistani. All the Afghans and five Iraqis have been recognised as
refugees.
Senator Vanstone said the remaining two on Nauru had not cleared security
checks. Their futures would be discussed by Foreign Minister Alexander
Downer and the Nauruan Government. The two say they were accused of not
co-operating with security interviews, but deny this.
The breakthrough follows a visit to the island last month by former
immigration minister John Hodges and mental health experts Paris Aristotle
and Ida Kaplan, who said the situation required urgent attention.
"It had reached a point where none of those interventions were going to
prevent a rapid decline in their mental health," Mr Aristotle said last night
It was clear Senator Vanstone was concerned about the welfare of the asylum
seekers and had taken the group's advice seriously, he said.
It is believed the condition of several of the internees had deteriorated
to the point that they were being constantly monitored because of the risk
of suicide or self-harm.
Senator Vanstone declined to be drawn on the report of the experts — or
earlier requests for intervention from the International Organisation for
Migration, the agency responsible for the running of the camp — but said
she had been examining the Nauru situation for some months.
The minister said the Pacific "strategy" was a vital part of the
Government's success in stemming the flow of unauthorised arrivals. "The
offshore processing centre will remain available to deal with future cases
if the need arises," she said.
In total, 1232 asylum seekers were processed in the Nauru camps. Of this
number, 473 voluntarily returned, and more than 320 were accepted as
refugees and resettled, many of them in Australia.
One of the Australian supporters of those who remained, Susan Metcalfe,
said last night she was relieved that common sense had finally prevailed.
Senator Vanstone said the 12 found not to be needing protection would be
brought to Australia on a temporary basis to allow their long-term
situations to be resolved. Some will initially be placed in detention.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/immigration/detainees-to-cast-off-from-nauru/2005/10/13/1128796652052.html
===============================
5. A policy of suffering rather than success
===============================
The Age
EDITORIAL
October 15, 2005
NEVER was the gap between political rhetoric and human reality wider than
in the case of the last detainees on Nauru. Prime Minister John Howard
yesterday hailed the offshore detention facility as an "outstanding
success" after the Government announced 25 of the last 27 detainees would
be transferred to Australia. Yet, as The Age reported yesterday, the
Government made the decision on advice that the detainees' mental health
was declining rapidly.
While Mr Howard still insists the Pacific Solution "stopped the boats",
numbers of asylum seekers fell worldwide following the fall of repressive
regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq — although co-operation with countries such
as Indonesia did help counter people smuggling.
But what of the justifications for the harsh regime of detention: that
"illegal" immigrants might have links to terrorists and, having thrown
children overboard (a claim found to be false), were not the sort of people
we wanted in this country? Even among the last 27 detainees on Nauru, 13
were found to be refugees, which means they had a legal basis for seeking
entry (as did hundreds of the 1232 people who were held on Nauru). Eight of
the 13 were from Afghanistan and five from Iraq, which exposes a cruel
contradiction of government policies. They fled the very regimes that
Australia helped topple, only for their ordeal to continue when they got here.
The damage done to people who were demonised and detained over the past
four years, and to Australia's standing as a fair and just nation, cannot
easily be undone. Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone's "sensible and
pragmatic resolution" is a welcome relief, but much needless suffering
could have been avoided had compassion and good sense prevailed years ago.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/a-policy-of-suffering-rather-than-success/2005/10/14/1128796710167.html
====================================
6. Howard claims Nauru an 'outstanding success'
====================================
The Age
October 14, 2005 - 12:31PM
The Nauru detention facility for asylum seekers was an "outstanding
success" and will be retained as an option after most of its detainees are
brought to Australia, Prime Minister John Howard says.
The Commonwealth has announced that 25 of the 27 people being held on the
Pacific island will be flown to Australia, with 13 to be granted refugee
status.
Mr Howard today said the Nauru Offshore Processing Centre - the centrepiece
of the government's so-called Pacific Solution for processing asylum
seekers offshore - had been pivotal in solving the problem of Australia's
illegal immigration.
"The Pacific solution has been an outstanding success," he told reporters
in Sydney.
"(It) has been integral to stopping the flow of illegal immigration to
Australia."
Asked if the centre would continue to be used, Mr Howard said: "We will
retain the option of having it if the need should arise in the future,
(but) I hope it doesn't".
"This government has stopped illegal immigration and our measures have
included the Pacific Solution," he said.
"Without it and without the other measures we'd still have a problem."
The government's decision followed a review by independent experts who
warned that urgent action was needed to stop further deterioration in the
mental health of detainees on Nauru.
Of the 13 people determined to be refugees, eight were from Afghanistan and
five from Iraq.
They would be offered temporary protection visas when they arrive in
Australia in the next fortnight.
The other 12, whose futures remained uncertain, include four Iraqis, four
Kurds, two Bangladeshis, an Iranian and a Pakistani.
The two detainees to remain at the centre have received "adverse security
assessments" and will be managed from Nauru.
- AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/howard-claims-nauru-an-outstanding-success/2005/10/14/1128796687523.html
==========================
7. Praise for 'end of Pacific Solution'
==========================
The Age
October 14, 2005 - 9:56AM
All but two of the remaining asylum seekers who have been detained on Nauru
will be brought to Australia, and half of them have been granted refugee
status.
Refugee advocates praised the outcome, saying it marked the end of the
government's so-called Pacific Solution of processing asylum seekers offshore.
Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone announced 25 of the 27 people being
held on the Pacific island will be flown to Australia, with 13 of them
determined to be refugees.
"A further 12 people, who have been found not to be in need of protection,
will also be brought to Australia on a temporary basis to allow their
long-term situation to be resolved from here," Senator Vanstone said in a
statement.
"This is consistent with the government's flexible approach to managing
complex case loads.
"The remaining two people at the OPC (Offshore Processing Centre) have
received adverse security assessments and will therefore remain on Nauru.
Their long-term situation will be resolved from Nauru."
The move meant the Nauru detention facilities - the centrepiece of the
government's so-called Pacific Solution for processing asylum seekers
offshore - would no longer hold large numbers of refugee hopefuls.
"It's the end - it's the solution to the Pacific Solution," Canberra-based
migration agent Marion Le said.
The government's decision followed a review by independent experts who
warned urgent action was needed to stop further deterioration in the mental
health of detainees on Nauru.
Of the 13 people determined to be refugees, eight were from Afghanistan and
five from Iraq.
They will be offered temporary protection visas when they arrive in
Australia in the next fortnight.
The remaining 12, whose future remained uncertain, included four Iraqis,
four Kurds, two Bangladeshans, an Iranian and a Pakistani.
Mrs Le, who had represented the detainees for two years, said she was
overwhelmed when the Immigration Department gave her the news last night.
"I could hardly stop crying. It's a wonderful outcome but at the end of the
day you ask yourself, what was it all about?" she said.
"It's about stuff ups, it's about government policy, but there are human
lives here. This is an outcome that is best for everyone."
As well as mental health issues for the detainees, the government's
decision was motivated by the high cost of keeping people on the island,
Mrs Le said.
There were also problems with maintaining adequate detention facilities in
the cash strapped nation.
"The costs have blown out, but also Nauru's falling apart - they've hardly
got any electricity there most days, so you've got a detention camp which
you really can no longer support one way or another," Mrs Le said.
Senator Vanstone defended the Pacific Solution, saying it had been a vital
part of the government's success in cutting the flow of illegal arrivals.
She said the detention centre on Nauru would remain available to deal with
future cases if necessary.
- AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/news/immigration/praise-for-end-of-pacific-solution/2005/10/14/1128796680146.html
==============================
8. PM says Nauru centre was a success
==============================
The Age
October 14, 2005 - 9:09AM
The Nauru detention facility for asylum seekers was an "outstanding
success" and will be retained as an option after most of its detainees are
brought to Australia, Prime Minister John Howard has said.
The Commonwealth has announced that 25 of the 27 people being held on the
Pacific island will be flown to Australia, with 13 to be granted refugee
status.
Mr Howard said the Nauru Offshore Processing Centre - the centrepiece of
the government's so-called Pacific Solution for processing asylum seekers
offshore - had been pivotal in solving the problem of Australia's illegal
immigration.
"The Pacific solution has been an outstanding success," he told reporters
in Sydney.
"(It) has been integral to stopping the flow of illegal immigration to
Australia."
Asked if the centre would continue to be used, Mr Howard said: "We will
retain the option of having it if the need should arise in the future,
(but) I hope it doesn't".
"This government has stopped illegal immigration and our measures have
included the Pacific Solution," he said.
"Without it and without the other measures we'd still have a problem."
The government's decision followed a review by independent experts who
warned that urgent action was needed to stop further deterioration in the
mental health of detainees on Nauru.
Of the 13 people determined to be refugees, eight were from Afghanistan and
five from Iraq.
They would be offered temporary protection visas when they arrive in
Australia in the next fortnight.
The other 12, whose futures remained uncertain, include four Iraqis, four
Kurds, two Bangladeshis, an Iranian and a Pakistani.
The two detainees to remain at the centre have received "adverse security
assessments" and will be managed from Nauru.
© 2005 AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Nauru-decision-ends-Pacific-Solution/2005/10/14/1128796679618.html
============================
9. £15m-a-year bill to hold two refugees
============================
The Telegraph, UK
By Nick Squires in Sydney
(Filed: 15/10/2005)
Two asylum seekers rejected by Australia will be kept on a remote South
Pacific island at a cost of more than £7 million each a year, it was
claimed yesterday.
The Australian government said that 25 of the 27 refugees held on the
island of Nauru for the past four years would be allowed into Australia
after fresh information on their cases was presented by the United Nations'
refugee agency.
Half of them - eight from Afghanistan and five from Iraq - will be granted
temporary refugee status, while the rest, mainly Iraqis, Kurds and
Bangladeshis, will continue to have their cases evaluated.
But the last two - who were reported to be Muhammad Faisal, 25 and Mohammed
Sagar, 29, from Iraq - will continue to be locked up in a purpose-built
detention centre on Nauru because they received "an adverse security
assessment" from the Australian authorities. They will eventually be
deported to their home country.
The government's critics labelled the arrangement a huge waste of money,
with the opposition Labour Party claiming that the cost of maintaining the
detention centre would amount to £15 million a year.
"It should be wound up completely and we shouldn't have two detainees
wasting away the rest of their lives just so the prime minister can save
face," said Tony Burke, Labour's immigration spokesman.
Andrew Bartlett, the deputy leader of the Democrats Party, said: "It's just
pouring more money down the drain for it to be kept open."
Nauru, a former British colony, agreed to open the detention camp in return
for millions of pounds in aid.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/15/wasy15.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/15/ixportal.html
=================================
10. Government defends deportation payments
=================================
The World Today - Thursday 13 October 2005
Reporter: Catherine McGrath
ELEANOR HALL: But we go first to the latest controversy to engulf the
Immigration Department - the revelations that the department was paid extra
money for detaining and deporting individual asylum seekers.
Former Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock has defended the system, saying
the funds were not inducement payments.
But the union representing public servants at the Department of Immigration
says the system meant that the illegal deportation of Vivien Alvarez Solon
in 2001 resulted in the department being given a funding bonus of $20,000
dollars.
And the Labor Party says the Department of Immigration was operating under
a financial model that encouraged a dangerous culture in the department.
From Canberra Chief Political Correspondent Catherine McGrath reports.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: The Government doesn't dispute that DIMIA was funded on
the basis of a so called 'purchasing agreement", but according to former
Minister Philip Ruddock it wasn't a plan to set up inducement payments, but
rather a method of providing funding for operations.
But the union representing DIMIA public servants says money was paid as a
result of the deportation of Ms Solon.
Steven Jones is the Assistant National Secretary of the CPSU.
STEVEN JONES: We understand the Department received somewhere in the
vicinity of $20,000 as a result of the funding arrangements between the
Government and the department for that deportation.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Now it's clear that the procedure has stopped, but it's
unclear when exactly it stopped. What do you believe?
STEVEN JONES: We understand that the Department is in the throes of
reviewing its funding arrangements. Something similar to those previous
arrangements is still in place, and I think in the public interest we need
a bit of transparency on that process.
What we don't want to see is a repeat of this situation, which has had
tragic consequences.
What we also don't want to see is public servants being blamed for merely
doing their job at the behest of the Government.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Philip Ruddock says the funding was set up to cover
departmental costs.
PHILIP RUDDOCK: And that means the Department was funded on what is called
an activity model. And if it had more detainees that it had to hold, it got
more money. It doesn't seem surprising if you've got people that you've got
to feed and clothe and look after that you count the numbers, and if you've
got more, it requires more funds.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: But according to Steven Jones, the money fed into the
Department's culture.
STEVEN JONES: What we're concerned about is, the funding arrangements that
were put in place between the Government and DIMIA created an incentive for
managers to put in place targets - targets which were all about getting
more deportations and more people put into detention centres.
PHILIP RUDDOCK: There was a finance model that was put in place, which was
activity-based. So it looked at the number of detainees, it looked at some
other performance indicators and said, look, if you've got more work to do
you get more funds.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Former Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock.
The information about the purchasing agreement was revealed in the response
from the Department to a question on notice from the Federal Opposition.
The answer to the Opposition noted that DIMIA was funded for the number of
people located, the detainee days and the number of people removed from the
country.
Labor's Immigration spokesman Tony Burke says the system was at fault.
TONY BURKE: There never should've been anything that amounted to a
financial incentive to encourage extra detainee days, a financial incentive
to encourage extra removals.
PHIILIP RUDDOCK: That's wrong. There were no bonus payments to officials.
Their performance pay, if you can put it that way, is a separate issue.
ELEANOR HALL: And that's the Attorney-General, formerly the Immigration
Minister, Philip Ruddock ending that report from Catherine McGrath in Canberra.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1481407.htm
================================
11. Govt defends detention funding bonuses
================================
Sydney Morning Herald
October 13, 2005 - 5:14PM
Thousands of asylum seekers would have gone without food and clothes if the
immigration department failed to receive funding bonuses for illegal
immigrants detained and deported before the 2001 election, the government
has said.
But Labor says the bonuses amounted to financial incentives for deporting
people or locking them in immigration detention and contends the policy had
a direct impact on the wrongful deportation of Australian citizen Vivian
Alvarez.
The immigration department revealed in answers to a Senate committee that
in addition to a level of fixed funding, the immigration department was
funded until June 30, 2001 for the costs of locating, detaining and
removing illegal immigrants.
Ms Alvarez, also known as Vivian Solon, was deported on July 20, 2001 to
The Philippines, where she remains while her legal team finalises a package
for her return home.
Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke said he was certain the
financial incentives to deport people had an impact on Ms Alvarez's removal.
"There's no doubt that the culture that was in place in June 2001 would
have continued into July 2001," he told ABC Radio.
"You don't get culture of change in a matter of days and what's clear from
this is the financial incentives, the whole financial structure that was in
place, the impact that had on the behaviour of people working in the
department of immigration would have had a direct impact on the treatment
of Vivian Solon."
But Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, who was immigration minister in 2001,
and Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone refuted Labor's claim that the
bonuses were equivalent to financial incentives.
They said the extra money was to deal with the influx of boat people into
Australia between 1999 and 2001 and pay for detaining and deporting them.
More than 4,000 boat people arrived in Australia in 2000-01 and more than
3,000 in 2001-02.
"The funding was linked to the numbers of people that you had to detain,
not as an incentive, but to ensure that the needs were met," Mr Ruddock
told AAP.
"It was handling immigration matters like we pay pensions - essentially on
the basis of the numbers of people you have to deal with.
"Essentially what they (Labor) are arguing is that the department of
immigration should not be paid to ensure that it could adequately feed and
clothe and service the number of people who had to be detained."
Senator Vanstone said it was nonsense to suggest immigration officers were
given financial incentives to detain and deport people.
"For anyone to suggest that provided a motive to generate revenue is
nonsense," she said.
But the opposition parties said the revelation that extra money was given
to immigration on the numbers it detained and deported only strengthened
the case for Senator Vanstone and Mr Ruddock to be sacked over a series of
immigration bungles.
It follows the release last week of former Victorian police commissioner
Neil Comrie's scathing report into Ms Alvarez's deportation and former
federal police chief Mick Palmer's report lambasting the department for the
wrongful detention of Australian resident Cornelia Rau.
Meanwhile, Senator Vanstone said she had received 12 assessments from
Commonwealth Ombudsman John McMillan from 221 cases of possible wrongful
detention.
© 2005 AAP
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Govt-defends-detention-funding-bonuses/2005/10/13/1128796643546.html
=================================
12. Greens angry at deportation bonus claims
=================================
Seven News
Date: 13/10/05
Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone should be sacked if departmental
officials received bonus payments for detaining and deporting illegal
immigrants, Australian Greens senator Bob Brown has said.
Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke claimed the Department of
Immigration was funded per detainee at the time of the Tampa crisis in 2001.
Mr Burke said extra payments were made to the department for the days
individuals were in detention and extra money was given for the number of
people who were removed in Australia.
Both Senator Vanstone and immigration minister at the time, Philip Ruddock,
have since rejected the accusation the system was one based on financial
incentive.
Mr Ruddock said the department was funded on an activity model, whereby it
received funding according to the number of detainees.
"[That] doesn't seem surprising if you've got people to feed, clothe and
look after that you count the numbers and if you've got more it requires
more funds," he said.
But Senator Brown said that if Labor's claims were proven, Senator Vanstone
should be replaced.
"If they're true the minister should go," Senator Brown told reporters in
Canberra.
"Obviously, you can't deal with the rights of people and the laws of this
country under a bonus system.
"It's presumably not criminal but it's outrageous behaviour which simply
can't be tolerated."
Senator Brown described the system as immoral.
"Paying costs is one thing, giving a bonus and incentive to deprive people
of their rights is an entirely different thing," he said.
"So that's what needs to be worked out and if it is a bonus system, then
the minister should go."
However, Senator Brown said the cultural problems in the immigration
department were created while Mr Ruddock was at the helm, with the
assistance of Prime Minister John Howard.
"The cultural problems are a Howard/Ruddock problem," he said.
"They have totally come from the `soulectomy' Mr Howard insisted Mr Ruddock
have when he take the portfolio - to remove any shred of humanity from
dealing with thousands of people behind barbed wire, including kids and
families.
"Amanda Vanstone's inherited that but the cultural problem comes right from
the top, right from the prime minister's office and it's not due to
somebody downstairs."
Copyright © 2005 AAP
http://seven.com.au/news/topstories/113364
=============
13. Bonus outrage
=============
Daily Telegraph
October 13, 2005
FINANCIAL incentives offered to the immigration department to detain and
deport asylum seekers would have had a direct impact on the wrongful
deportation of Australian citizen Vivian Alvarez, Labor says.
The immigration department revealed in answers to a Senate committee it was
funded until June 30, 2001 for specific activities including location,
detention and removal of illegal immigrants.
Ms Alvarez was deported on July 20, 2001 to The Philippines, where she
remains while her legal team finalises a package for her return home.
Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke said he was certain the
financial incentives to deport people would have had an impact on Ms
Alvarez's removal.
"There's no doubt that the culture that was in place in June 2001 would
have continued into July 2001," he told ABC radio.
"The answer to the question on notice ... doesn't make clear when this
funding model was dumped.
"Notwithstanding that, even if it was dumped at the end of June you don't
get culture of change in a matter of days and what's clear from this is the
financial incentives, the whole financial structure that was in place, the
impact that had on the behaviour of people working in the department of
immigration would have had a direct impact on the treatment of Vivian Solon
(Alvarez)."
Mr Burke was outraged to learn the government offered funding bonuses to
deport and detain people and said former immigration minister Philip
Ruddock, now the attorney-general, had to take responsibility for offering
incentives.
"The reality is this provided incentives ... for some of the worst possible
behaviour," he said.
"The department of immigration was running on a model that provided
financial incentives to behave in the worst possible way - extra money for
the department for the number of people who were removed in Australia.
"The culture of the department was being driven by some direct financial
modelling.
"You can't have a situation where the minister isn't aware of the funding
model under which their own department is being based."
Senator Vanstone clarified the immigration department's answer, saying base
funding for the department included assumptions on the number of
detentions, locations, removals and costs.
"If those actual costs varied, adjustments were made to cover the real
costs that were being experienced by DIMIA (immigration department)," she said.
"This occurred as a result of the influx of unauthorised boat arrivals
between 1999-2001."
Senator Vanstone said it was nonsense to suggest immigration officers were
given financial incentives to detain and deport people.
"For anyone to suggest that provided a motive to generate revenue is
nonsense," she said.
"As a service-delivery agency, DIMIA is not a profit-making enterprise."
Mr Ruddock denied his former department received bonus payments for
detaining and deporting illegal immigrants in 2001 and backed Senator
Vanstone's comments that the extra funding was to deal with the influx of
boat people.
"There were no bonus payments to officials," he told ABC radio.
"The department was funded on what is called an activity model, and if it
had more detainees it had to hold, it got more money.
"It doesn't seem surprising that if you've got people that you've got to
feed and clothe and look after that you count the numbers and if you've got
more it requires more funds."
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,16906018-5001022,00.html
==============================
14. Ruddock denies deportation 'bonuses'
==============================
The Age
October 13, 2005 - 11:40AM
Former immigration minister Phillip Ruddock has denied that the department
received bonus payments for detaining and deporting illegal immigrants in 2001.
"There were no bonus payments to officials," he told ABC radio.
"The department was funded on what is called an activity model, and if it
had more detainees it had to hold, it got more money.
"It doesn't seem surprising that if you've got people that you've got to
feed and clothe and look after that you count the numbers and if you've got
more it requires more funds."
Immigration minister Senator Vanstone clarified her department's answer,
saying base funding for the department included assumptions on the number
of detentions, locations, removals and costs.
"If those actual costs varied, adjustments were made to cover the real
costs that were being experienced by DIMIA (immigration department)," she said.
"This occurred as a result of the influx of unauthorised boat arrivals
between 1999-2001."
Senator Vanstone said it was nonsense to suggest immigration officers were
given financial incentives to detain and deport people.
"For anyone to suggest that provided a motive to generate revenue is
nonsense," she said.
"As a service-delivery agency, DIMIA is not a profit-making enterprise."
The immigration department revealed in answers to a Senate committee it was
funded until June 30, 2001 for specific activities including location,
detention and removal of illegal immigrants.
The ALP has suggested that financial incentives offered to the department
to detain and deport asylum seekers would have had a direct impact on the
wrongful deportation of Australian citizen Vivian Alvarez.
Ms Alvarez was deported on July 20, 2001 to The Philippines, where she
remains while her legal team finalises a package for her return.
Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke said he was certain the
financial incentives to deport people would have had an impact on Ms
Alvarez's removal.
"There's no doubt that the culture that was in place in June 2001 would
have continued into July 2001," he told ABC radio.
"Notwithstanding that, even if it was dumped at the end of June you don't
get culture of change in a matter of days and what's clear from this is the
financial incentives, the whole financial structure that was in place, the
impact that had on the behaviour of people working in the department of
immigration would have had a direct impact on the treatment of Vivian Solon
(Alvarez)."
Mr Burke said former immigration minister Philip Ruddock, now the
attorney-general, had to take responsibility for offering incentives.
"The reality is this provided incentives ... for some of the worst possible
behaviour," he said.
"The department of immigration was running on a model that provided
financial incentives to behave in the worst possible way - extra money for
the department for the number of people who were removed in Australia.
"The culture of the department was being driven by some direct financial
modelling."
- AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ruddock-denies-deportation-bonuses/2005/10/13/1128796627037.html
================================
15. Govt faked Serb's travel documents: ALP
================================
Seven News
Date: 14/09/05
A Serbian asylum seeker, embroiled in a case in which the federal
government has been accused of acting like a people smuggler, says she fled
her homeland using false documents to escape persecution.
Labor says the government behaved like a people smuggler, supplying the
woman and her husband with false identities so it could deport them.
But Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone has rejected the claims, saying
they are without foundation and a slur on her department.
Labor's immigration spokesman Tony Burke says the government falsified
travel documents for South Australian opera company singer Valbona Kola,
30, and her stonemason husband Ergi Anton Kola, 32, who the immigration
department tried to deport last year.
Mr Burke says the government faked the documents because Serbia would not
accept ethnic Albanians, like the Kolas, who fled southern Serbia during
the government's ethnic cleansing program in 1999.
Valbona Kola maintains she always admitted arriving in Australia on false
documents and says the couple used the documents to escape persecution
under the regime of former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic.
"I came to Australia and I reported myself to the immigration department
within the limit of time that was appropriate for reporting yourself," Mrs
Kola told ABC radio.
"I came with a false identity - I'm not the only one that did that anyway.
"And I'm not saying this for justifying myself, but I see it like, if you
are in a house that is being burnt you don't think which way to go out if
your instinct says that you should go out immediately.
"I had to flee ... because of the ethnic cleansing that was ... happening
in the Milosevic time in 1999."
Refugee agent Marion Le says after spending time in an Albanian refugee
camp, the Kolas - who had been found to be refugees by the United Nations -
used fake passports in 1999 to fly to Australia, where they applied for
refugee status and were given bridging visas.
However, when the couple tried to renew their visas last November they were
sent from their Adelaide home to South Australia's Baxter detention centre
and told they would be deported to Albania because they were illegal
immigrants.
Valbona Kola said the people smugglers took her husband's fingerprints as a
form of security when they sold them the fake passports.
Mrs Kola lives in Adelaide while her husband is in Baxter.
Labor has vowed to find out the truth behind claims government officials
issued fake passports for the two Serbians.
Labor's foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd says the opposition is deeply
concerned about the probity processes in the immigration department and
potentially in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT).
"It'd be very helpful for us and for the Australian public if all the facts
were put on the table," Mr Rudd told reporters in New York.
"What we know from previous matters of this nature is it's like getting
blood out of a stone, getting the truth out of the Howard government when
it comes to these sorts of matters."
Mr Rudd said commonwealth law applied to all Australians, including
government departments.
"These are serious matters - that's why Tony Burke has raised them in the
parliament," he said.
"They go to the probity processes within immigration and within the
department of foreign affairs.
"We intend to get to the bottom of it ... and we're not going to stop."
Copyright © 2005 AAP
http://seven.com.au/news/nationalnews/107033
==========================
16. Call for probe into fake ID claims
==========================
Queensland Sunday Mail
14sep05
A SENATE inquiry should investigate claims government officials falsified
documents in a bid to deport two Serbian asylum seekers, the Australian
Democrats said today.
Labor accused the Immigration Department of asking the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to falsify travel documents for opera
singer Valbona Kola and her husband Ergi while trying to deport them to
Serbia last year.
Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett said today the matter should be
investigated by an ongoing Senate inquiry which is already looking into the
wrongful deportation of Vivian Alvarez.
He said the well-documented cultural problems at immigration now appeared
to extend to DFAT.
"There is a vast array of documents demonstrating these people's real
identity and just a stubborn, pig-headed refusal to accept it by both
departments because of their obsession with removing people wherever the
opportunity was available," Senator Bartlett said.
"Certainly, the specifics need to be investigated it's another case that
should be investigated by the continuing Senate committee inquiry into the
operation of our migration system.
"But the point has to be made that for all the problems that are now
clearly there in DIMIA, the foreign affairs department as well is a player
in some of these injustices."
Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone has refuted the claims, saying they
were without foundation and a slur on the department.
But Senator Bartlett said he had asked several questions in Senate
estimates hearings about the Kolas, without identifying them, as he
believed them to be an innocent couple who had been consistently let down
by the system.
"What this family has gone through isn't just a matter of one set of dodgy
travel documents," he said.
"They've been in this country for nearly six years, they were recognised by
the UNHCR before they even got here as refugees.
"They should have been given a visa right at the start, frankly.
"Instead they've been forced to endure a life of limbo, month after month,
having to get one bridging visa after another ... followed with the
indignity eventually of being put in detention because of this identity
debacle."
Australian Greens senator Bob Brown said it was a serious matter which
clearly required further investigation.
"It's a very, very serious matter," Senator Brown said.
"These people should be sent nowhere ... if there's even a claim of
falsifying documents, of course that's got to be cleared up.
"It wouldn't surprise me that the government would turn a blind eye to
falsifying of documents by its own department if that has happened let's
have it cleared up.
"Similar concerns have been raised before, it isn't the first time and
there needs to be a stop put to it."
Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke says the government faked the
documents because Serbia would not accept ethnic Albanians, like the Kolas,
who fled southern Serbia during the Milosevic Government's ethnic cleansing
regime in 1999.
http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16595533%255E421,00.html
===========================
17. Serbians were 'fleeing persecution'
===========================
Courier Mail
14sep05
A SERBIAN asylum seeker, at the centre of a political row, said she fled
her homeland using false documents to escape persecution.
Labor accused the Government of behaving like a people smuggler, supplying
the woman and her husband with false identities so it could deport them.
But Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone has rejected the claims, saying
they were without foundation and a slur on her department.
Labor's immigration spokesman Tony Burke said the Government falsified
travel documents for South Australian opera company singer Valbona Kola,
30, and her stonemason husband Ergi Anton Kola, 32, who the immigration
department tried to deport last year.
Mr Burke said the Government faked the documents because Serbia would not
accept ethnic Albanians, like the Kolas, who fled southern Serbia during
the government's ethnic cleansing program in 1999.
Mrs Kola maintained she always admitted arriving in Australia on false
documents and said the couple used the documents to escape persecution
under the regime of former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic.
"I came to Australia and I reported myself to the immigration department
within the limit of time that was appropriate for reporting yourself," Mrs
Kola said on ABC radio.
"I came with a false identity I'm not the only one that did that anyway.
"And I'm not saying this for justifying myself, but I see it like, if you
are in a house that is being burnt you don't think which way to go out if
your instinct says that you should go out immediately.
"I had to flee ... because of the ethnic cleansing that was ... happening
in the Milosevic time in 1999."
Refugee activist Marion Le said after spending time in an Albanian refugee
camp, the Kolas who had been found to be refugees by the United Nations
used fake passports in 1999 to fly to Australia, where they applied for
refugee status and were given bridging visas.
However, when the couple tried to renew their visas last November they were
sent from their Adelaide home to South Australia's Baxter detention centre
and told they would be deported to Albania because they were illegal
immigrants.
Mrs Kola said the people smugglers took her husband's fingerprints as a
form of security when they sold them the fake passports.
Mrs Kola lives in Adelaide while her husband is in Baxter.
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16600252%255E1702,00.html
=============================
18. No detention conspiracy - Vanstone
=============================
Daily Telegraph
By Sharon Mathieson
September 14, 2005
THE man at the centre of claims the Immigration Department falsified
documents in a bid to deport him will almost certainly be refused
permission to be at the birth of his first child.
Ergi Anton Kola, 32, is likely to remain locked in immigration detention at
the Baxter facility in South Australia while his 30-year-old wife, opera
singer Valbona Kola, gives birth to their child in Canberra.
Following the birth, due in early November, the family faced deportation to
Albania, Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone said today.
Senator Vanstone has vehemently denied Labor's claim the Government
knowingly falsified travel documents so the Kolas could be deported.
She accused Labor's immigration spokesman Tony Burke of being a coward by
making the claims, and threatened to take legal action against him.
Mr Burke said the Government faked the documents because Serbia would not
accept ethnic Albanians such as the Kolas, who fled southern Serbia during
the Serbian Government's ethnic cleansing program in 1999.
But the Federal Government said Mr Burke's claims were wrong, and the
Immigration Department had in fact uncovered the true identity of the
Kolas, whose real names were Venona Vata and Paulin Pali, and who were
Albanians, not Serbs.
The couple arrived in Australia in 1999 on documents they subsequently
claimed to be false.
Senator Vanstone said the couple's application to stay in Australia was
rejected by the Immigration Department and two legal challenges failed.
Travel documents were sought from the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade (DFAT) in the name of Kola, and bridging visas were granted so they
could return to their homeland.
But Senator Vanstone said more information became available to show the
Kolas were not who they said they were, and more travel documents were
issued in the names of Pali and Vata.
The Serbian Interior Ministry register of citizens did not have any record
of the Kolas, while information from the Albanian Government stated they
were Albanian citizens, she said.
Interpol information also showed they had false drivers' licences in the
name of Kola, and had carried the identity card of another person, she said.
For Mr Burke's claims to hold true, Senator Vanstone said, Australia,
Serbia and Albania must have conspired to fake documents.
Mrs Kola, who was released from Glenside psychiatric hospital in Adelaide
less than a fortnight ago, said she used false documents to enter Australia
because she was desperate to escape persecution.
She said she was going mad, fearing for the safety of herself, her husband
and unborn child.
"My mental health is deteriorating every day because of not having my
husband here with me," Mrs Kola said.
"And I really ask for my husband to be released from Baxter detention
centre. There's a total absence of sympathy."
Senator Vanstone said Mr Kola was facing drug charges in South Australia,
and taxpayers could not be expected to foot the bill for his extradition to
Canberra for the birth.
"There's an issue to be considered there in terms of the costs of getting
him backwards and forwards for trial at taxpayers' expense," she said.
"I'll think carefully about whether taxpayers are prepared to do that."
Senator Vanstone indicated the Kolas would be deported to Albania once
their baby was born.
"Unless there's further information that changes the status of our
knowledge, we have advice from the Albanian Government that they are
Albanian citizens and we will intend to return them to Albania," she said.
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,16602840-5001028,00.html
========================
19. Residency for cricketer, family
========================
The Advertiser
11oct05
THE former Woomera detainee selected to play cricket for South Australia
two years ago has finally been allowed to call the state home.
Years of uncertainty came to an end when temporary protection visas for
Mohammed Safi and his family were transferred to permanent residency two
weeks ago.
The Safi family fled the village of Basood in central Afghanistan and came
to Australia on a people smuggler's boat in December, 2000, arriving at
Ashmore Reef.
Mohammed, his parents Nasimah and Alidost Safi, his four sisters and
brother were detained in the Woomera Detention Centre for four months.
In 2003, Mohammed, who fell in love with cricket at Brompton Primary
School, was selected for the South Australian Cricket Association junior
state squad.
But excitement was tempered by his family's uncertain future.
Mohammed, now 15 and "happy" to be staying, continues to play SACA grade
cricket for Woodville. Coach Mike Barnes said his under-16 opening bowler
jointly took out the best bowling last season and was already pushing for
senior selection for the side.
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16878409%255E2682,00.html
====================================
20. Gerry Georgatos on Australia's "refugee crisis"
====================================
Gerry Georgatos is the Education Vice-President at Murdoch University in
Perth, WA. In this article, first published in Murdoch University's student
magazine METIOR (Edition 07, 2005, the man issue) Gerry reviews Australia's
policy of locking up refugees and he searches for answers from
philosophers, the state of the media, and our persistent closed-shop racism
to explain Australia's attitudes in this policy area.
Australia's "refugee crisis"
From Metior, Ed 07, 2005
by Gerry Georgatos, Education Vice-President
Murdoch University
Western Australia
Mandatory Detention is in breach of S268(12) of the Criminal Code. Only the
Attorney-General can lay a charge against his own government, possibly
himself and against the Minister of Immigration. In a presumably just
society the laying of charges, and the case by case inquiry must always lay
in the hands of totally independent bodies.
Australia does not have an illegal immigration problem. Australia, still,
is racist, and this racism continues to construct Australia's legal and
governance stances. The presumed illegal immigration, historically and
contemporaneously, has been, and is, miniscule - most peoples fleeing to
Australia have legitimate claims, such as persecution and starvation. Most
of the people cruelly incarcerated in Detention Centres are genuinely
considered as asylum seekers. 90% have been granted Temporary Protection
Visas, thus they are bona-fide refugees. It is anathema, as bona-fide
refugees, when Australia is signatory to so many human rights conventions,
and the initiator of many agreements, and the voice of allegations, that
the government prolongs the incarceration of the bona-fides.
It must always be reinforced that Australia has never had, and does not
have, an illegal immigration problem. What it has is a racist identity, and
self-regarding history, that has created a closed economy, and these are
main contributions to the ludicrous cries for border controls. If
Australia's foreign policy wasn't in line with the other major players in
world politics, and their transnational corporate regulators, then
Australia would be suffering similar condemnation as did Apartheid South
Africa. Australia's White Australia shame has not concluded, nor has it
sought forgiveness and identified pursuance to a new national
consciousness. When peoples insist on mandates, rules and regulations which
favour certain presumed stereotypes then this is sheer racism and
discriminatory. They predicate Foreign policies, and the perpetuation of
conflicts and disparity. The long-term vision of ending cycles, regionally
and globally, is lost to the short-term-vision of self-regard. The Liberal
Party wallows in self-regard, in its closed ranks mentality, its closed
economy principles: and with this self-regarding ethos can never aspire to
end cycles and have a globally sustainable vision. The Laborites, the
Greens, the Democrats are Australia's only immediate hopes with their, in
principle, other-regarding natures. Yet, Malcolm Fraser maybe right when he
suggests that Labor has descended from its original platforms and with the
Liberals is chasing the redneck vote.
It is for Labor to stand truer to its underlying ethos and be
other-regarding, for the Greens and Democrats to maintain this steadfast
vision. Howard Conservatism, or rather bigotry, have, for the last decade,
frowned upon Australia, and, consequently, most young people have now grown
up under the influence of Howard Conservatism. It is a sad state when
people support the locking up of children rather than demand universal
human rights. Even though I am for old growth forests, and disagree with
logging, I can understand their arguments, but can never understand
arguments in relation to the loss of human rights for the many, and the
upholding of rights for the few. Thus, human existence devolves to numbers,
it is a lottery, all merely depending on how you hit the world. Nietzche
described the Herrenmoral, where the aristocracy are honourable to their
own kind, but cruelly look down upon their presumed inferiors. Nietzsche
died maddened by his witness at the disgust he presumed of the world. God
is dead, and humankind hoodwinked by falsity, and in blind wandering,
everyone an Oedipus and no-one knowing who's screwing them, all screwing
each other. It's always the poor, hoodwinked by the rich, upholding the
hopes and aspirations of the rich, never belonging to the blind.
Australia's economy is pretty much similar to that of some of the
Scandinavian countries, and has a reductionist and protectionist policy
which values non-utilitarian economics, and totally disregards diversity
and difference. Aetiologically, originating from the harsh silence of the
Australian seascape that oppressed and dispossessed the Indigenous peoples,
and viewed its immediate neighbours as heathens.
Greece has suffered economically for opening its borders to the
poverty-stricken of Albania, and, yes, there is dissension amongst Greeks.
Yet, the government, and it has as right-wing a government as Greece has
known in recent decades, took on humanistic value formations manifest by
their acknowledgement of the impost of human interrelations and the
long-term vision of human intellectual evolution, and allowed them in. Yes,
Greece has a different psychological history to Australia, its national
consciousness is heavily influenced by the ancient philosophers, and it has
more educated people than Australia (17% of Australians have a higher
education, this is another issue). The Serbian nightmare arose when they
had allowed 90% of Kossovo to be settled by Albanians, but this did not
deflect from the Greek decision. Nationalism is a sickness, a lie: people,
on this planet, have the right to go wherever they want to whenever they
want to. How dare people sit in judgement of people who risk their lives,
and the lives of their family members in order to discover safer haven?
Instead of ameliorating and bringing humanity together, there is raging
debate about how to maintain reductionist policies, and perpetuate a
self-regarding closed economy. Not all people come to Australia because
they believe it to be this wonderful place, and once here feel isolated and
dispossessed, but are here to survive. Many migrants are distressed by the
quiet suburbs and the lack of community and activity.
The media cannot be counted on to tell the truth, it doesn't. It is
institutionalised and policy ridden by its transnational corporate owners
who are the oligarchy, the players who manifest true governance. The
political parties toe the line with the media, because they believe they're
lost without them. The non-Liberal parties always feel a tenuous hold with
the media, and rarely speak their mind, because they know the value of the
increasing power of editing. Yet, they too should remember the voices of
the past that have made great differences, and should vest belief in going
hard with their true apothegms. People are not stupid, though formatively
malleable, and Hanson did have a million behind her, and Howard more, but
it is about education. I do not believe in any form of censorship, and
defend latitudes of expression, they are our rights and hopes. I don't
heckle anyone down, I want them heard, because if allowed to talk for long
enough then they will either be shown up, or positively contribute. If
Labor in the last election had described its true nature, had spoken out
against the scaremongering of the Liberals, of the falsity of illegal
immigration as some major problem, of the conspiracies and contraventions
in our Foreign policies then the Liberals would not have the hideous
balance of power they now have, and, with it, hope to manifest the type of
social, cultural and economic engineering that governments achieved in the
first half of the 2Oth century.
Rossetti wrote '...who can see the wind, neither you nor I...' but when the
boughs bend we know it is passing, and so, likewise, we sense truth.
Howard, Costello, Abbott, Ruddock, Vanstone are throwbacks to the 1920s,
social engineers rather than utilitarian reformers. Yet, I've crossed paths
with some of them, and know them as God-fearing types, but their policy
making is foreign to New Testament fundaments. Instead, they have
maintained as if inherent the belief that the Celtic, and the assimilated,
Australian are virtuous and most of the rest of humanity as heathen, or
inferior. Religion is not to blame, because the Methodist David Lange was a
positive social justice reformer in New Zealand and stood up to American
nuclear power. We just don't live in the right psychological conditions,
and thus the Dark Ages continue - it's just not Queensland conservatism and
the harsh rural existence that permitted Hanson and a million others,
Howard Conservatism is no less ignorant or vile than Hanson's nescience.
Though our ability to discover the truth is now being outstripped by our
ability to manifest deceit there is much that is obvious to those who are
somewhat learned, or observant. Foreign policy is built around recidivistic
Transnationals and not the workers that make it possible, or the remaining
ransomed citizenry. Foreign policy, in order to institutionalise, rampages
cultural and economic normative(s). I've seen more democratic communities
in the Third World than I have in the presumed First World with its Tenth
World consciousness. Eisenhower warned the American citizenry to be on the
alert against the unwarranted influences within the
military-industrial-complex and governance. Any fool knows that for
Transnationals to achieve ends Foreign Policy is dictated to, and its
lackeys and cronies stir the dormant passions of regional fundamental
beliefs in order to foment the chaos that is their door. The God-fearing
types in governance and the recalcitrant and recidivistic Transnationals,
with their petrol eyes, scare-monger and decimate. We know that hideous
regimes have been perpetuated by the presumed Western World. So many of us
knew that there were no WMDs, the SCUD struggled to make the list. We're
searching for answers to resolve towards sustainable development, but 60
years after Oppenheimer's weapons were tested for consequences on two
Japanese cities, we still haven't learned. As Einstein once remarked, we
can't solve the problems with the same thinking that created them. The
Jewish, are one of many cultures, to suffer every outrage imagineable,
persecution, exile, quarantine, the Holocaust, yet they who should have
known better can't resolve the Palestinian question in which after two
millennia of residence, they rudely dispossessed the Indigenous
Palestinians. Australia still can't fully admit its crimes against the
Indigenous, can't admit it is still racially prejudiced, can't admit it
contravenes human rights, can't admit it is a selfishly closed economy.
Think about the great world we live in: hundreds of millions live sheltered
at the expense of, and from, the billions who live in abject poverty
because the hundreds of millions have taken their allotments and their
rights away. This is who we're keeping out, we don't want them here, but we
want their resources. This world can't work, not on utilitarian and
egalitarian principles, if it will not have genuine minimum and maximum
standards.
In fifty years, as, somewhat, with the Stolen Generation, Australia will
look back with a modicum of shame on the great crime it committed with the
SIEV-X, where it broke every humanitarian, maritime and international law
and sent to their watery deaths so many mothers and children. In the
preceding August Australia had turned away a leaky overcrowded boat of
refugees, that a Norwegian freighter saved when it found it sinking. The
SIEV-X sank not, in that great Howard lie, in Indonesian waters, but in
International waters, Australia bound, in Australia's aerial border
protected surveillance zone. 146 children, 142 women and 65 men, 353,
drowned at sea. Boats had been turned back by Australia's Operation Relex,
and there is a history of refugees drowning at sea, and even a Ruddock
interview preceding the SIEV-X disaster defending Australian inaction in
searching for missing boats of refugees in the high seas. And people think
these people aren't desperate, that most aren't bona-fide in fleeing? ...
In the end, the current designs are shit, the rich exploit the poor, the
few are sheltered from the many, if people in their hearts aren't evil
their ways are evil, this system isn't working, and lies are manifest and
swallowed - as long as we insist on society and structures, and thus
interrelations, then people have a right to go wherever they want to in
this world, and people have a right to the same rights as everyone else.
Detention Centres are part of the exercise that is the Dark Ages.
From http://www.safecom.org.au/gerry-georgatos.htm
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-|| This is the Project SafeCom Newsletter - also published
-|| as the RAC-VIC Newsletter (Racvicnews) since July 2004 by agreement
-|| with RAC Victoria, which endorsed that their news service be
-|| managed by Project SafeCom. More information about us below.
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-||- Project SafeCom info
-||+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Online archives of our News & Updates:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/safecom/read
Project SafeCom has operated a "virtually full-time" operations office
since TAMPA. At Project SafeCom, an Incorporated Association in Western
Australia, we exist from donations, the sale of some items via our website,
and from memberships. You can make a donation by transferring funds to our
account at Bendigo Community Bank Kulin, BSB Number 633-000. Account name:
Project SafeCom Inc., account 11564 3900, or by sending a cheque or money
order to our address below.
P.O. Box 364 - Narrogin WA 6312 - Phone 0417 090 130
+-+-+-+
LINKS:
+-+-+-+
ROYAL COMMISSION Petition: download it, print it, put it out - everywhere
around town: http://www.safecom.org.au/royal-commission.htm
The bLog - FIXING AUSTRALIA: http://www.safecom.org.au/fixing-australia.htm
What's New - this page lists all the new additions to the website -
hundreds of pages: http://www.safecom.org.au/whatsnew.htm
Project SafeCom events page: http://www.safecom.org.au/events.htm
The Reading Room: http://www.safecom.org.au/readings.htm
The Project SafeCom shop: http://www.safecom.org.au/products.htm
Our Baxter page: http://www.safecom.org.au/baxter.htm
Project SafeCom's No War position: http://www.safecom.org.au/no-war.htm
.
|
|
 |
|
