"Showing love to people where people are the cause of the problems is the most powerful means of solving world problems."
—SUNRISE
"The more security you want in your nation, the more you must help people in other nations. You cannot ignore the plight of other people, or else it will come to bite you in the ass at some point in the future."
—SUNRISE
The problem
There is a refugee crisis.
Trends supporting this view
There is evidence of worldwide migration
A quick glance through the more balanced and comprehensive newspapers, radio and television networks (i.e. not Fox News) reveals plenty of evidence of refugees seeking asylum in other countries. The reasons for the migration are many and varied, but the primary reason is to escape prolonged suffering and hardship, violence and unfair imprisonment for having different views to certain leaders in the refugees' own countries. Since we must acknowledge the existence of refugees in the world today, the next question is: Are the numbers of refugees increasing to the point where they might be described as a "crisis"? It depends on who is making the claim and how governments see or not see the problem by implementing certain policies.
For example, should certain policies be supportive of asylum seekers and their plight, observations from certain governments of developed nations suggest an increase in the number of refugees arriving on the nations' shores and borders, especially if the developed nations are said to be economically prosperous and have a stable and benign government running the country and are not at war with other nations, or there is no collapse in vital social services and items of need such as food and water. If, on the other hand, policies are particularly strict to the point of treating asylum seekers with a certain level of contempt after bypassing certain standard migration laws and then have to make them live like second-class citizens in appalling detention centres or prisons (should be aptly named concentration camps given how similar the asylum seekers are treated short of being put to death as the Jewish people had been under the Nazis) for years as if the current political climate does not encourage compassion and generosity of spirit to the visitors, then the number of refugees entering a developed nation appear to drop significantly, or are hidden from the public by careful manipulation of statistical information and immediate sending back of the refugees to another country for "processing". The reason for the latter approach, according to certain R-wing Governments, is primarily because of high costs to feed, house and provide security to asylum seekers (and following the 11 September 2001 attacks in New York the Government feels it has a legitimate concern of terrorists getting into the country).
NOTE: It has been argued that the cost to feed, house and provide security for one asylum seeker in an Australian detention centre is equivalent to putting an Australian student through medical school. But if cost is a major issue, why not change the system to one that does not require money to look after the refugees?
One view on current detention centres for holding refugees
Actually Human Rights Commissioner Sev Ozdowski gave a good definition for prison and detention centre. In March 2005, Ozdowski said:
"The key difference between a prison and a detention centre is that in a prison, you know why you are there, you know when you will get out and you've got the routine of the day. In a detention centre, you don't have that.
'The mental health of prisoners is much better than what I saw in immigration detention centres. [Asylum seekers'] access to TV, their access to newspapers is difficult...and the access to internet is non-existent. The conditions are very restrictive. It was particularly disturbing viewing families in detention; they were just disintegrating." (Tinkler, Emma. From refugee to human rights commissioner: The Canberra Times. 26 March 2005, p.B6.)
An interesting statement coming from someone who had experience being a refugee himself.
UPDATE
25 August 2003
The Federal (Howard) Government has been forced in the Australian law courts to release the children of asylum seekers held in detention centres because there is evidence to support the view that children are being psychologically damaged by staying in the detention centres for too long. Immigration Minister Mr Philip Ruddock is trying to appeal against the decision, presumably on the grounds that it costs too much to look after children in a proper and safer environment. Funny that considering the same government wants to see families produce extra babies to support the economy over the next 20 years. So what's wrong in helping children of refugee families to gain the skills, education and love to become the future supporters of the economy?
R-wing governments make extraordinary efforts to save money over the long term on the refugee issue
To further reduce the number of asylum seekers entering a country and so allegedly save money without actually solving the issue head on and in a creative way, the former Howard Government had to spend millions of dollars on spectacular overseas advertisements showing the next wave of refugees the apparent hopelessness of coming to a developed nation like Australia. For example, the Government will happily show graphic images of great desert expanses and the presence of highly dangerous animals (e.g., snakes, crocodiles, scorpions etc.). Instead of helping refugees at least learn a new skill to carry with them into Australia if they get approval to stay or take back with them to their homelands and apply it if the Government has to say no in the end after reviewing their applications, the Government feels it is not in their interest to help the global community in this small and simple way for the refugees. Rather, a R-wing government has to waste a lot of time in making a decision on the future of each asylum seeker held in detention centres, and later spend lots of money to tell other refugees not to come to Australia. All this in the hope the refugees will allegedly change their minds and return home (as if any claim of being killed back home is all a joke or these people are making up the claim).
UPDATE
1 January 2003
The consequences of forcing asylum seekers to wait longer than usual for a decision from the government include frustration, anger and eventually (for some men) to affect the environment and themselves in a negative way (e.g. set fire to accommodation at the detention centres, or commit suicide).
UPDATE
10 January 2003
If the Australian "R-wing" Howard Government is so preoccupied with saving money for the sake of making the Australian economy look good on the world stage, then why are Australian taxpayers funding detention centres to the tune of $290 million every year when it would cost no more than $11.2 million per year to let asylum seekers live in the community?
These are the figures presented by Greens Assembly Member Kerrie Tucker at a rally in Garema Place, Canberra, who labelled the current cost to detain asylum seekers within barbed-wire fences in the middle of the desert as scandalously expensive. The figures were obtained from an analysis conducted by a group of refugee advocates known as A Just Australia.
As Tucker said:
"If you did a cost-benefit analysis you would find that it is not good policy in any sense, it's extremely expensive, it's in breach of UN conventions on human rights, and it's inconsistent with how other asylum-seekers are treated who apply after arriving with a visa." (1)
According to the analysis, it is claimed over 8,000 asylum-seekers were living in the Australian community in 2000-01 of which 2,690 received a government benefit via the Australian Red Cross. The benefits amounted to $200 per week for each of the 2,690 asylum-seeker. Even if we assume each asylum-seeker received $10,400 for the entire year, that's approximately $28 million (the Government apparently paid only $11.2 million to these asylum-seekers).
Then in 2001-02, the Australian Government spent $150 million to hold 3,500 asylum-seekers in detention centres throughout the mainland and another $140 million for 1,440 people on Pacific islands. The total being $290 million.
If we allowed 1,440 + 3,500=4,940 people to live in the Australian community and all receiving benefits, that's $51.4 million. Even if we added another $50 million for additional housing etc, it would still be cheaper than spending $290 million. Now $100 million as opposed to $290 million. It doesn't take a maths genius to work out that Australians are paying 3 times more to keep people in detention centres than to allow them to live in the Australian community.
Where is the logic in that?
As Tucker added:
"What are we getting for our money? People driven mad by inhumane and cruel treatment, a seriously damaged international reputation and a divided Australia, with increasing victimisation of Muslim people in particular.
'Both Labor and Liberal have shown a cowardly lack of leadership, placating the worst instead of promoting the best in us.
'They're creating a climate of fear which may suit the political agenda of [Prime Minister] John Howard in particular, but it will cause long-term damage to our country.
'Mandatory detention is part of creating this climate of fear, it's part of an expensive propaganda war telling Australians asylum-seekers are dangerous and need to be locked up when there is absolutely no evidence to support this."
UPDATE
11 October 2003
The billion-dollar system for housing refugees in Australian detention centres has been described as the harshest in the world according to federal human rights commissioner Sev Ozdowski. Using the kindest and most unbiased words he could find during a seminar at Monash University, Ozdowski said:
"It [Australia's system] is the harshest — the harshest mainly from the point of view of the length [of detention].
'I've never seen the level of despair [in camps anywhere] that I've seen in Australia." (2)
Ozdowski's main concern were for the children. Based on the information he has managed to glean from government sources and observing refugees first-hand, Ozdowski claims there are 50 children who have been kept in detention centres for more than two years as of April 2003.
To add to his concern were the mental health of a number of refugees who have been kept in detention centres for over 12 months without anything to do or any distractions to keep the refugees minds preoccupied. Unlike prison systems in Australia where prisoners are allowed to have regular routines of exercise and times for sleep as well as access to television, sport, literature and education, refugees kept in Australian detention centres have no such luxury. The result of such sensory deprivation from the outside world and generally poor access to quality resources necessary for a healthy mind and body has been behaviours and statements from refugees indicating self-harm, a sense of worthlessness, and wanting to commit suicide just to end their psychological and emotional misery.
And worse of all, the officials from the Department of Immigration and Ethnics Affairs with whom Ozdowski has spoken to appeared uninterested or unwilling to help or have been told by the Federal Government to ignore the refugees plight in detention centres for the sake of saving taxpayers money in return for a healthier Australian economy. As Ozdowski said:
"My view is that this culture in the department contributes to the harshness in the detention system." (3)
Ozdowski presented his latest findings in Federal parliament in 2004. In the meantime, the new Immigration Minister Ms Amanda Vanstone (known affectionately as Mrs Hitler by those refugees being treated badly at detention centres under her official policies) has gone on record as saying:
"[Australia is] one of the great immigration success stories. We have a generous, robust and ordered immigration system." (4)
UPDATE
25 October 2003
With an election year looming, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government is trying hard to look compassionate to the Australian people by allowing women and children to be separated from the fathers in detention centres and have them placed into a supervised residential facility in Port Augusta for an indeterminate amount of time. Is this to be viewed as an improvement to the current Australian detention centres? Well let us see. According to Greens National Refugee spokesperson Ms Pamela Curr of Brunswick, Victoria, in Australia:
"It is hoped that before women and children are moved into the "supervised residential housing" at Port Augusta that the media will demand a tour of this facility.
'They will find demountable houses surrounded by razor-wire fences. Families are allocated one bedroom per family in these two and three bedroom houses, sharing one toilet, bathroom and kitchen between them.
'Swivel cameras mounted inside the houses record their every move [including in the showers and toilets]. Male and female guards access the houses at any time of the day or night [without regard for privacy or giving prior warning before doing so]. Mothers are accompanied by at least two guards when they go shopping and are not allowed to greet friends when out.
'Woomera residents report seeing guards dictate to the women what purchases they may make and removing items from shopping trolleys. On one occasion guards shouted at a mother for buying her child a punnet of strawberries.
'Families agree to the separation because they hope that it will help their children. Last week a mother asked to be returned to the detention camp at Port Hedland because her children were missing their father. A "Sophie's Choice" imposed on families for their great crime of seeking asylum in this inhospitable land." (5)
This is presumably the Government's way of saying, "We are doing all we can to improve the situation for asylum seekers!"
UPDATE
4 November 2003
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government is being subtle at stemming the flow of illegal immigrants (actually it isn't illegal for these immigrants under the 1951 International Refugee Convention) into Australia. The latest news at hand is that the Government will be deciding where the next boatload of 14 Turkish kurds on board the Minasa Bone at Melville Island will be processed. The truth is, the Government is negotiating quietly with the Indonesians to take the boatload of refugees while hastily creating an exclusion zone of hundreds of islands in the north-west of the continent including Melville Island as the way for the Government not to process the refugees within Australia as required under UN and Australian laws.
UPDATE
16 November 2003
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government's idea of negotiating with the Indonesians involved physically expelling the kurds from Melville Island in the direction of Indonesia without getting agreement from the Indonesian authorities to accept them. Apparently the Government is arguing that if the kurds had first arrived in Indonesia before deciding to move on to Australia, then they should have been processed as refugees in Indonesia. Hence all manner of responsibilities to the refugees under UN and Australian laws by the Australian Federal (Howard) Government are throwing out the window.
Understandably the Indonesian foreign affairs spokesman Mr Marty Natalegawa was not impressed. He said:
"Agreement was not sought, nor was it given by Indonesia to this decision by the Australian authorities to basically expel them out of Australia.
'Information was shared with us that the boatload of people were to be driven out of Australia again in the direction whence it had come from.
'On this case we weren't asked for agreement, nor is it our intention to reach agreement to Australia's action, because to do so would be to give a blessing." (6)
Yes, and how long would it take for the Indonesian authorities to act on the 'shared' information from the Australian authorities or to find a solution to the refugee problem?
Anyway, the Australian authorities should have at least discussed it further with the Indonesian authorities before action was taken on the refugees. Who knows? Perhaps it might be seen as fair to both countries to each take an equal portion of the refugees and look after them under the international refugee convention. It is not as if Australia or Indonesia are struggling economically speaking, so there should be no excuses. And Indonesia should be more than happy to help out if there is a proper discussion of the situation.
In fact, the responsibility for the refugees should be shared by all the countries that permitted the refugees to migrate as well as the country in which the refugees reach their final destination.
If Australia continues to follow this road of expelling refugees from its border and treating existing one within Australia badly (considered the worse in the Western world), maybe it is time the Government makes it clear to the world it is not prepared to support the 1951 Refugee Convention. What's the point of agreeing to the Convention if Australia is not prepared to stick to its agreement?
UPDATE
20 November 2003
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government is justifying the harsh stance with the Turkish Kurds and other asylum seekers by claiming the Government is worried terrorists may enter the country on a refugee boat. A good excuse to save lots of money for the government while playing on the fears of the public in the wake of September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York by avoiding to help the more than 95 percent of asylum seekers who are found to be genuine refugees according to official immigration statistics, and definitely not terrorists! Even the remaining 5 per cent who aren't genuine refugees at detention centres have never been found by the Australian Government to be terrorists.
UPDATE
24 January 2004
After failing to see the advantages in trying a different approach to solving various social problems, the former Australian Prime Minister John Howard has labelled the new Labor opposition leader Mr Mark Latham as weak after he presented a more compassionate approach to treating asylum seekers coming into Australia. While Mr Howard is trying to make Mr Latham think the same as Mr Howard and hence give Mr Howard another chance of winning the next election, it looks like Mr Howard is not aware of the fact that weaker is the man who cannot find alternative solutions and admit the harm he is causing to other human beings through his own current harsh policies despite being fully aware of the situation. The person who is stronger is the one who is compassionate.
And anyway, a strong leader would also admit his mistakes. In fact, to this day, Mr Howard has remained quiet on other issues such as whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction despite a CIA agent quitting his job today in Iraq after finding no evidence.
So who is the weaker man now?
UPDATE
February 2005
The recent shocking treatment of a mentally-disturbed young lady and an Australian citizen named Cornelia Rau who accidentally ended up at the Baxter Detention Centre reveals more of the life of how asylum seekers live in Australia as they wait for a decision.
Ms Rau, a former Qantas flight attendant, suffered from bipolar disease in 1998. She continued working for Qantas until the disease had deteriorated. Just before then, she sought help for her stress, mental anguish and need to find someone through a dubious Scientology-inspired religious cult called Kenja. This organisation was more interested in taking her money and isolating her from her family in an attempt to create new religious beliefs in her mind. The cult would use sustained interrogation and abuse in a locked room to achieve their aims with the woman.
After the interrogation had appeared to work, she received a new name in an attempt by the cult to create a new life for her. However, her mental illness was not properly understood and diagnosed by the cult. Further efforts were made to isolate her and eventually she was expelled from the cult.
On 17 March 2004. she left Manly Hospital's psychiatric unit in Sydney on her own accord. North Queensland police found her in the remote town of Coen talking about all sorts of things including the claim that she is a German tourist by the name of Anna Brotmeyer. Police found she was carrying a false German passport, had no money, and spoke some German as if to support her claim.
With no other identification details, police assumed Ms Rau was an illegal immigrant and kept her in custody for three days. The immigration authorities were notified of her case. But in some incredible bungling and hurried decision-making, she was sent to Brisbane Women's Correction Centre on 5 April 2004 for six months of which five of those months she was never visited by an immigration official. Barely a month later, prison staff were concerned about her behaviour.
Behind the scenes, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was trying to establish her identity with German officials without success.
On 16 August 2004, nearly a month before the end of her jail time, Ms Rau's family reported her as missing. Yet police and immigration officials were not aware of Ms Rau's Australian citizenship and missing person status. Authorities were of the firm and unwavering view that she was an illegal immigrant.
After the six months, police could no longer keep her in custody under State law. The Federal law took over after no one claimed who she was and Ms Rau was later transferred to the Baxter Detention Centre in South Australia by Federal authorities on 7 October 2004.
Despite authorities closely scrutinizing her unusual behaviours (e.g. walking around naked, eating dirt, talking incoherently etc) through cameras in her room and shower/toilet, interactions with other refugees, and in the exercise courtyard, it didn't occur to the authorities that she needed treatment for her mental illness. To add to the confusion, the report of a psychiatric assessment for Ms Rau from the Princess Alexandra Hospital dated 20 August 2004 concluded Ms Rau did not "exhibit the diagnostic criteria for a mental illness."
Rather immigration officials at the Detention Centre would describe her behaviour as a form of misconduct worthy of solitary confinement for at least a good part of her four months stay (exactly as the religious cult had done). It seemed, while she was labelled an illegal immigrant, no effort to properly diagnose the problem or provide appropriate treatment for her mental illness.
Then on 4 February 2005, authorities at the Detention Centre discovered she was an Australian citizen after detainees, a refugee advocate and a journalist learnt of her plight and her family notified authorities of who she was after reading about the woman through the media on 31 January 2005. Immediately she was whisked away by the authorities for the best treatment at Adelaide's Glenside Hospital.
Ever since then, State and Federal authorities have been scrambling to find an explanation for how an Australian citizen ended up at the Baxter Detention Centre and why she was left for so long without treatment now that the Australian public has learnt of the bungle.
Whether it is because the authorities didn't have a complete and fully accessible database of missing persons to determine Ms Rau's true status or whatever, one thing is clear: if you are a refugee suffering any kind of health problem (even a mental one), don't expect to be treated by Australian authorities run by a private company known as Global Solutions Limited contracted by the Federal (Howard) Government (so the Government won't be required by law to show transparency for its actions to the public through an act in Parliament). It reveals the shear contempt the Government has for asylum seekers in Australia.
It doesn't matter if former Immigration Minister Mr Philip Ruddock has changed jobs and the immigration portfolio has been taken over by Federal Minister Amanda Vanstone (whose original position prior to this portfolio was the Minister for Justice over a period of 6 years). Vanstone has the same thick skin (like that of a crocodile) and lack of conscience when it comes to the matter of treating asylum seekers with dignity and respect.
Vanstone has defended the actions of three different jurisdictions over this case claiming it is not anyone's fault if Ms Rau claimed she was a German tourist. Now she is under pressure to conduct a public enquiry.
Vanstone is trying hard to say this will not be a full open public enquiry. She declares not all details will be revealed. She uses Ms Rau's medical history as an example to explain she has rights to her privacy. Vanstone is doing all she can to make sure only certain facts will emerge to the public while other facts (whatever they may be) will be kept in the dark.
To make the Australian Federal (Howard) Government seem accountable to the public while still controlling the facts, Vanstone is looking into someone close to the Government to head the enquiry. Definitely it won't be an independent judge with the power to decide which facts should come out in the public interest and not in the government interest.
Vanstone has made an effort to make it look independent by asking Australian Federal Police chief Mick Palmer to head the enquiry. Unfortunately there will be no judge to work with Palmer.
With all that has transpired in this case, Vanstone must also have a particularly poor memory when it comes to applying justice in the Australian community.
Treatment of refugees appears not harsh enough for some governments
Still not tough enough on the refugees? There is, of course, the traditional "whack over the knuckles with the cane" approach as another way of enticing asylum seekers not to enter a new country illegally. Apparently a personal favorite for the former Malysian Government in 2002. As the Malaysian Deputy Home (Interior) Minister Chor Chee Heung kindly told the Malay-language newspaper Berita Harian:
"In my opinion, it is useless to detain them for long. What is important is to cane them [possibly up to six strokes of the cane] and deport them. We are also afraid the prisons cannot accommodate all of them.
Right now, there are about 29,000 criminals held in jails throughout the country when capacity at these prisons is about 23,000.
With the increase in the number of illegal immigrants detained, the overcrowding problem will greatly worsen." (7)
Since this statement was made by Heung in August 2002, it would appear the Malaysian Government is hoping the entire "asylum seeker" problem will eventually disappear (i.e. from media attention and public scrutiny) after another four or five more detention centres are built by 2004, and a whole lot more "caning" of course.
NOTE: Detention centres is the preferred term for image-conscious Governments who want to avoid looking like they are treating people like prisoners.
In the meantime, the Federal (Howard) Government refused United Nations inspectors to check out the status of Australian detention centres and prisons unannounced for the most fundamental humanitarian reasons such as determining whether or not people are protected from torture, appropriate food is provided, and there are lots of opportunities for rehabilitation and to learn new skills. Why?
UPDATE
The Federal (Howard) Government has tried hard to convince the Australian public of the importance in keeping asylum seekers in detention centres. Now a High Court of Australia decision has upheld the government's legal power to detain some asylum seekers in its own detention centres indefinitely. We must presume the asylum seekers being kept indefinitely have confirmed links to terrorist groups or some other similar reason. Otherwise it would be inhumane to keep asylum seekers in a detention centre for life.
Of course, not every asylum seeker is going to be a terrorist. So the question, therefore, becomes how do we determine this and, in the meantime. how the asylum seekers should live in the detention centres to avoid mental health problems?
Unfortunately this basic human right is not being seen as a high priority in the High Courts. Rather, the decision is more concerned about whether the government does have the legal power to detain anyone for as along as it likes based on any reason (even if it means the government must make up stories to justify its actions).
Greens leader Senator Bob Brown described the decision as appalling and clearly shows "Australia's immigration detention regime is inhumane and should be overhauled."
Showing a good public image is more important than helping refugees
The Government needs to set an example to the media and to the public of at least one or two asylum seekers who lied to immigration officials about their refugee status and then say this is their whole argument for keeping all the asylum seekers in detention centres and why they must be treated in the way they do. Instead of acknowledging that it is quite likely a majority of asylum seekers are legitimate, the Government would prefer to highlight one or two isolated cases to help support their overall "hardline" immigration policy.
For example, after revelations that Australia's most well-known asylum seeker Ali Baktiari had admitted he may not have lived in Afghanistan as had originally been claimed to immigration officials, former Prime Minister John Howard was quick to take the opportunity to support the current "hardline" immigration policies of Mr Philip Ruddock by saying to media officials on Friday 23 August 2002:
"I would just invite people who have been so ready to criticise [Immigration Minister] Philip Ruddock and so ready to brand the Government as heartless and so ready to criticise the system...to have a look at this material and just accept that we're not people who are behaving unreasonably." (8)
UPDATE
26 August 2002
The latest information we have at the moment is the class action being taken against the Australian Federal (Howard) Government by lawyers representing the asylum seekers.
Apparently while the Government was convincing everyone of how reasonable they were with asylum seekers, those asylum seekers who are released from detention centres with temporary VISAs have been issued with a bill (ranging anywhere from $27,000 to $200,000) for the time spent in detention centres courtesy of the Federal Government.
Now apart from not having enough money to pay the bill (i.e. practically all the money the asylum seekers would have had was spent getting to other nations like Australia), the Federal legislation has been set up to ensure asylum seekers will fail in their quest to permanently stay in Australia. How? It is a condition of the temporary VISA that the asylum seeker cannot find work which would otherwise help to pay the bill. But since it is also a condition of permanent Australian residency that the asylum seeker cannot have a debt to the Commonwealth, it is unlikely the asylum seeker can ever repay the debt and, therefore, gives the Federal Government enormous legal power to send the asylum seeker back to where they came from. "Learn fast, succeed, and pay your debts and you may live in Australia," seems to be the new slogan from the government.
Lawyers working for the asylum seekers are in the process of taking the Federal Government to the High Court arguing that the actions taken by the Government are unconstitutional.
UPDATE
16 September 2002
Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock appeared on ABC television's Australian Stories. Rumours have it that his appearance in the television program as a highly compassionate and kind family man and allowing his daughter to have very strong public views about asylum seekers which is opposite to her father's suggests Ruddock could be following orders from former Prime Minister John Howard to show a more compassionate side.
R-wing governments are more concerned about costs rather than doing the right thing and coming up with new solutions
The Australian "Howard" Government can't say "Sorry" to the "stolen generation" for all the wrong-doings performed by early white settlers in the past on indigenous people because it may cost the Government too much money by way of compensation settlements for potentially so many indigenous people.
Why do we always expect to compensate people with money all the time? What's wrong with, say, giving indigenous people ownership to important land areas in Australia and letting them take responsibility for managing those areas including perhaps even National Parks as well? Indigenous people are more of an expert in land management principles that the European farmers who came to Australia and probably most Australian farmers in our current generation. Wouldn't that be a fair enough compensation for all the things we've done to indigenous people in the past? If not, most aborigines wouldn't care less if they receive compensation. Just to know people acknowledge the wrong-doings from the past has a powerful effect of helping people to move on and start a new chapter.
As another example, the government is prepared to bring into the country a few hundred or thousands of foreigners to do jobs where there is a critical skills shortage and/or insufficient numbers to do the jobs but choose not to use the skills and/or eagerness to learn and work by those individuals locked up in detention centres (let alone put the money into training and providing good working conditions for the country's own unemployed workforce). Apparently too expensive for the government to train existing people in the country including asylum seekers to perform the jobs.
Because of an apparent need to save money (in readiness for the next Federal election big spending ideas) and the fear that some people are becoming unstable (no surprises there when people have been locked up doing nothing and treated badly in the detention centres), the government thinks some people might be terrorists from their behaviour (and people are made to think the unemployed people are lazy bastards who don't deserve anything from society).
UPDATE
23 March 2005
Australian Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone is softening her hardline stance ever so slightly with asylum seekers after being pressured from her own party members — Liberal backbenchers Ms Judi Moylan, Mr Bruce Baird and Petro Georgiou — to come up with another solution. Now a new Visa will be created to allow asylum seekers to enter the Australian community if they stay too long in detention centres (i.e. 3 years or longer). Good move! But in order to apply for this Visa, asylum seekers must waive their rights to stay in Australia. To put it another way, asylum seekers entering the Australian community through this Visa must comply with the Government's decision to send them back to their own country "once that becomes practicable". In Vanstone's eyes, this probably means the next available flight overseas and only when it is possible to avoid the public eye.
As the lawyer for one of the detainees, Thea Birss, said:
"It's immediate freedom versus long-term risk: it's a pretty cruel choice to have to make, but they're so desperate to get out of detention. I think some of them will decide to take up the visa." (Stevenson, Andrew & AAP. Detainees' visa joy too good to last: The Sydney Morning Herald. 25-27 March 2005, p.4.)
The Greens senator, Bob Brown, gave his view on the planned temporary visas when he said:
"What Amanda Vanstone is saying is if you don't want to stay and rot for years behind the razor wire, renounce all your legal rights as a citizen, as a human being, and we'll let you out." (The Sydney Morning Herald: Quotes. 25-27 March 2005, p.34.)
Incidentally, refugees released through this bridging visa will not be able to work, no access to concession travel, no health care or accommodation assistance and no English classes. It is probably better off sending asylum seekers back to their own country if this is the way we should treat these people.
It shows the cunning way in which the Australian Federal Government will get what it wants no matter what. The only difference is that this time asylum seekers must maintain their sanity after three years in a detention centre so hopefully they can be mentally fit to enter the Australian community. Afterwards they will be sent back with love from Australia (i.e. no money or skills).
When asked whether the Government is showing compassion in this latest move, refugee advocate Marion Le said:
"It's very hard to attribute compassion to a government that for so long has locked up women and children in detention." (The Sydney Morning Herald: Quotes. 25-27 March 2005, p.34.)
In the meantime the Australian public must deal with another incompassionate situation where the Federal Government can appear unannounced in schools to take away the children of parents with expired Visas in an attempt to force the parents to come out, become reunited with their children, and get deported immediately back to the country they are trying to run away from, even if the children are born in Australia (they should have automatic Australian citizenship rights although you wouldn't think so from the way the Government is acting).
Has anyone thought of doing the same to Ms Vanstone's own children?
Signs of a R-wing government acting as psychopaths
After much protest by the Australian people, the Government finally caved into demands to allow approximately 1,000 Cosovas and Albanians to stay in Australia until the Balkin war in former Yugoslavia had ceased. That was many years ago. While around half of the people have decided to return to their homeland, around 500 people have asked to stay. Incredibly, the former Howard Government has done nothing to prepare themselves for this inevitable possibility. Now the bureaucrats and the Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone are scrambling to make hasty decisions on a case-by-case basis for each family wanting to stay in Australia.
So what the hell were the authorities doing over the past few years? Can't they take their friggin' thumbs out of their arses and do something? And if they can work faster, do something for the people in the Australian detention centres.
Or should we describe the Government as a psychopath? According to psychologists, a psychopath is someone who is physically unable to feel how other people feel in a process known as empathy. There is little limbic system response (i.e. emotions) to how other people feel.
Psychopaths present themselves confidently, communicate well and look charming on the outside, but deeper down they are prepared to do anything to get what they want even if it means harming other people.
The more the Federal (Howard) Government continues to treat refugees with such contempt and heartless action, the more people will see the government as a psychopath.
Care for people in detention centres not improving under a R-wing government
Another disgraceful case of mishandling of an Australian by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This time a woman named Ms Vivian Alvarez Solon was wrongly deported to the Phillipines because of her poor English and lack of identification paraphernalia on her at the time she was picked up by immigration authorities. Yet the Australian Federal (Howard) Government through Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone continues to reject calls for a royal commission into Australia's treatment of refugees.
And again the Australian Federal (Howard) Government has been embarrassed on the international stage yet again on 24 May 2005, this time by Malaysian media, after learning of a Malaysian women named Virginia Leon being held at the Baxter Detention Centre since 2000. The Malaysian Government has put a request to the Australian Government for the woman to be released until something can be organised for her to return home to Malaysia.
The Australian Government has complied. Remarkable, isn't it?
Now some Liberal backbenchers in the Government are asking for an independent assessment and a new policy to handle refugees in long-term mandatory detention. After enough L-brain anecdotal evidence together with clear advice from professional psychologists, according to one Liberal backbencher, there may be a change in the air.
Then again it may take one hell of a porcupine of evidence for the thick-skinned Mr John Howard and Amanda Vanstone to sit on to realise something has to be done.
This may not be totally scientific but the idea of mandatory detention really sucks. As Australian comedian Max Gillies quite rightly said, "This is not just mandatory detention, it is Amandatory detention!"
UPDATE
15 June 2005
Increasing unrest among Liberal backbenchers headed by Petro Georgiou over the unnecessarily harsh mandatory detention policies under Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone and her department known as DIMIA has finally forced the Australian Prime Minister John Howard to discuss a compromise plan. Under the new plan and so avoid a mutiny, mandatory detention would remain. However, refugees will now have the luxury (under Liberal's eyes) of a maximum 6 month limit in detention. Furthermore all families will be released immediately. And time needed to make decisions at DIMIA and the Migration Review Tribunal will be sped up to not longer than 3 months. As Mr Howard said:
"In future, all primary protection visa decisions taken by the Department of Immigration [ie. DIMIA] will need to occur within three months of application.
'Likewise, reviews by the Refugee Review Tribunal must occur within three months of application." (Fraser, Andrew. PM cuts wire for refugee families: The Canberra Times. 18 June 2005, p.1 (pp.1-2).)
A reasonable set of suggestions. Makes you wonder why the Howard Government, for all its rhetoric about good rational and common sense thinking, couldn't have thought about this more sensible and rational idea as early as 1998?
The suggestions are likely to affect 8,000 of the refugees held in detention centres.
UPDATE
18 June 2005
On reviewing the compromise package from Mr Howard, Mr Petro Georgiou said:
"The agreement with the Prime Minister will mean a very substantial improvement for the conditions and well-being of refugees and asylum-seekers.
'The agreement will usher in a new period in asylum-seeker policy with very real improvements for fairness, transparency and compassion in the implementation of the policy." (Fraser, Andrew. PM cuts wire for refugee families: The Canberra Times. 18 June 2005, p.2 (pp.1-2).)
The view was further echoed by fellow Liberal MP Ms Judi Moylan when she said the compromise plan was "a great victory for the democratic processes of our country." (Fraser, Andrew. PM cuts wire for refugee families: The Canberra Times. 18 June 2005, p.2 (pp.1-2).)
But as Canberra migration agent Marion Le described the plan from Mr Howard, it is all "pure window dressing".
Le supports this statement by saying the majority of Refugee Review Tribunal decisions were already being made within three months and that most preliminary departmental decisions were under a month. So what Mr Howard said as part of his plan was not news. Also Le believes releasing families into "community care" would mean special detention housing with surveillance cameras in every room. As Le said:
"That housing is not out of detention...the women and children are under surveillance in every room including the toilets and showers, and they can't leave the house without being accompanied by a guard. It is still humiliating and invasive, and it is, in fact, worse than being in detention because there is greater surveillance." (MacDonald, Emma. Detention deal just window dressing: Le: The Canberra Times. 18 June 2005, p.2.)
In addition, Le says Mr Howard's idea to give review powers to the Ombudsman under the compromise plan would certainly make the Government look good. But the powers are already available at the Migration Review Tribunal. And any suggestions from the Ombudsman through the reports tabled in parliament and/or at the Tribunal would not be legally binding, making it virtually a complete waste of time. In fact, as Mr Howard conceded:
"No recommendation of the Ombudsman will in any way bind the minister." (Fraser, Andrew. PM cuts wire for refugee families: The Canberra Times. 18 June 2005, p.2 (pp.1-2).)
Le described Mr Howard as "...a very, very clever politician."
UPDATE
20 June 2005
The highly-respected ABC television news program 7.30 Report hosted by Kerry O'Brien showed some startling admissions from Mr Howard about the reason why mandatory detention must be maintained under his so-called compromise plan and whether his plan would affect the children on the offshore detention centre under Australian rule at Nauru.
Mr Howard has admitted to interviewer Mr O'Brien that mandatory detention is necessary to punish people for entering into Australia in an unauthorised manner. And if the conditions are bad enough, hopefully it will deter other refugees from coming into Australia illegally. Who says refugees are illegal?
This admission comes after the Howard Government has already determined nearly all refugees were genuine and are running away from regions where their lives and the lives of their familes are at risk. Mr O'Brien quite rightly mentioned this fact and how it would be the last thing on the minds of refugees to determine what's an authorised way of getting into Australia. Yet Mr Howard focussed on the laws of immigration as far more important in his mind than worrying about why the refugees are arriving to a developed nation. such as Australia
Talk about ignoramus maximus on the part of Mr Howard!
Then came the next outrageous admission. All the compassion Mr Howard supposedly showed on Friday 17 June 2005 to the children and mothers held in detention centre within Australia were thrown out-the-door when we learn from him that children and mothers held in a detention centre offshore (actually much longer than those held within Australia) on an island called Nauru will not benefit from this compromise plan. Why? What's the difference in the refugees being processed offshore?
Are the conditions on Nauru so much better that Mr Howard doesn't have to extend the plan to these refugees?
We hear the same razor wire fences still confine the refugees on Nauru. Not exactly a luxury home for refugees of the same calibre as Mr Howard's own home residence in Sydney!
UPDATE
23 June 2005
The Howard Government is considering closing down the detention centre in Nauru.
UPDATE
2 July 2005
Kym Charlton, acting director of Public Affairs at the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA), claims there has never been razor wire fences. Refugees held for processing at the Nauri Offshore Processing Centres are released into the local community on weekdays and Saturdays. An improvement to the conditions for refugees compared to the Baxter Detention Centres no doubt. But what's keeping the residents in the centres at night and on Sundays? And why is it taking longer to process the refugees?
It may not be a razor wire fence, but we suspect there is a fence of some sort. A psychological fence of prolonged waiting followed by a fence of hundreds of miles of ocean infested with sharks. Not exactly a major improvement. So where's the training? Where's the health services? Where's the effort to bolster the confidence of the refugees to achieve something on their own and solve problems? Instead, DIMIA continues to frustrate the refugees with its inexorably long timeframes for making a decision, and doing nothing to help the refugees.
Detracting the public from solving the refugee problem
In a rare show of listening (or more window dressing) from the Federal Government, Amanda Vanstone has tried to distract media attention on refugees in detention centres by focussing on the latest, more successful program with Australian aborigines at the start of Reconciliation Week.
Often described as the real refugees of the Australian continent living under their colonial white rulers for more than 200 years, around 43 of the 1,100 Australian aboriginal communities are starting to receive government funding in return for signing a shared responsibility agreement with the Federal Government showing what the aborigines can realistically contribute by way of improving conditions in the mostly remote communities.
One would have thought the Government would place unrealistic and harsh set of demands "to fit all" on aborigines. However, in this unusual move, it would appear government departments in charge of handling indigenous affairs have listened, understood and accepted the level of participation aboriginal people are able to contribute for their community. Now a number of shared responsibility agreements have been signed.
Vanstone said the agreements were "a new way of doing business, going direct to local communities, listening to them and understanding the part they want to play." (Peatling, Stephanie. Let's make a deal: Canstone lauds quiet revolution: The Sydney Morning Herald. 28-29 May 2005, p.15.)
At least the government is moving in the right direction, if not very slowly. At this rate, it would take about 25 years to cover the remaining communities and, as Labor's indigenous affairs spokesman, Mr Kim Carr said:
"These agreements are negotiated with those communities who have the greatest capacity to engage with government rather than those with the greatest need. They focus on very simple projects rather than taking a holistic approach to the economic development of the community." (Peatling, Stephanie. Let's make a deal: Canstone lauds quiet revolution: The Sydney Morning Herald. 28-29 May 2005, p.15.)
Well, you've got to start with simple projects before going on to grander things. You need to give aborigines confidence they can do things with the resources available. It is a positive start.
Another point worth mentioning is how many of those aboriginal communities receiving the funding and have signed the agreement were already well advanced in carrying out extensive work as part of the Council of Australian Government process. As Australian Democrats senator Aden Ridgeway said:
"...yet the Government conveniently rebadges this work as their own and calls it an instant policy success." (Peatling, Stephanie. Let's make a deal: Canstone lauds quiet revolution: The Sydney Morning Herald. 28-29 May 2005, p.15.)
Ignoring this public relations front being displayed by the Federal Government, we have to say the move is a positive one.
Now if only Vanstone can do the same for the refugees in detention centres.
UPDATE
30 May 2005
We thought it was too good to be true. The Federal Government wants aboriginal communities to own land taken away by the Government. Why? Because it will come at a cost. The land will be leased to the communities that can pay the most. At the same time, it will force aboriginal people to get a job and pay for the land or allow mining companies to come in and extract minerals while helping the aborigines pay for the lease.
Clever bastards!
UPDATE
14 July 2005
The report from the Palmer enquiry into the Cornelia Rau and Vivian Alvarez Solon affairs released on 14 July 2005 has strongly criticised the DIMIA staff at the Baxter detention centre saying they weren't given adequate training and there is a culture of not doing anything or didn't try hard enough to find out more about their refugees or to help refugees who exhibit mental illness, whether or not the refugees turn out to be Australian citizens.
However the report would not go as far as to mention the involvement of the Federal Government in creating this bad culture and poor training among DIMIA staff on the grounds that the Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone is a new minister and had relied on her public servants to give her correct information, which she claims she didn't receive.
And while no senior DIMIA public servant has come forth to show how it all began in cabinet under the former Immigration Minister Mr Philip Ruddock after discussions with Mr Howard and quietly maintained by Ms Vanstone, the Palmer enquiry had no evidence to prove Ms Vanstone is equally responsible.
Once again Ms Vanstone successfully retains her job.
Mick Palmer had the power to gather more information by setting up a royal commission. But he chose not to for whatever reason. In the end, the report would only scratch the surface, focussing on the agencies and DIMIA that directly handled Ms Rau's case and not going as far as to call upon all witnesses including the ministers to get a full picture of what really happened.
More extraordinary is the fact that when Vivian Alvarez Solon was wrongly deported to the Phillippines on 20 July 2004, an internal Immigration Department audit of the records to see when access to Vivian's files were made showed the record was accessed twice by unnamed DIMIA staff on 23 July 2004 and 27 August 2004. Those files would have proved she was an Australian citizen simply be realising she was already married to an Australian. Yet nothing was done. If the staff had realised the mistake, it would appear there was a cover up.
It is believed senior management had called for an internal Immigration Department audit of the records.
Prime Minister Mr John Howard was quick to make it look like he is fixing up the problem by removing a couple of department heads from DIMIA and later publicly stating his apology to Ms Rau and Ms Alvarez. However the people Mr Howard removed were appointed to higher positions in other government departments. For example Bill Farmer, former immigration bureaucrat will not become the Australia ambassador for Indonesia. We can only hope he can learn from first hand experience why refugees leave Indonesia to head for Australia.
As for the apology, Ms Rau may have accepted it but her sister Christine does not, saying to the media that there should be reforms in the detention centres. Christine said in front of a media audience:
"This [the Palmer inquiry] was an administrative review rather than looking at the underlying cause and effects. I think an open judicial inquiry should investigate...detention as a deterrent. Does it work or is this a myth?
'The Palmer report is only the beginning. There are at least 199 other cases we know of that are yet to be investigated. If the Government is honest about genuine reform, it should make public the details of other cases." (Kerr, Joseph & Pearlman, Jonathan. Immigration's change of heart on detainees: The Sydney Morning Herald. 16-17 July 2005, p.6.)
Eddie Raggett of Mosman, NSW, aptly summarised the events when he said:
"The Palmer report found the usual "blah blah blah" things wrong with the Immigration Department but nothing so serious that a few sideways shifts, an ambassadorial posting, an endorsement of the minister and a quick apology from the Prime Minister couldn't mend." (The Sydney Morning Herald: Responsibility for flawed system lies at the top (Opinions & Letters). 16-17 July 2005, p.34.)
And Garry T. Smith of Tuckombil, NSW, had this to say:
"Once, just once, I'd love to hear a Government minister say: "My fault, I'm to blame, I stuffed up, the buck stops here."
'I think we would be all so impressed (and shocked) by such honesty that the sins would be forgiven." (The Sydney Morning Herald: Responsibility for flawed system lies at the top (Opinions & Letters). 16-17 July 2005, p.34.)
UPDATE
15 July 2005
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie wants to remind Australians of their convict origins with identification numbers on their bodies by suggesting a national ID card could solve the immigration bungle with Australian citizens. Australian Prime Minister John Howard is looking into the merits of the suggestion thinking it could also solve the terrorism problem. However after the London bombings, national ID cards will do nothing more than prove terrorists are citizens of a nation or not, it won't make the terrorists easier to catch for the authorities.
In fact, anyone can be a terrorist which makes the ID card concept for dealing with terrorism look pretty useless. An ID card will not be able to discern the difference between a terrorist and a non-terrorist unless some people want to blurt it out to the world that they are a terrorist and thus hopefully have it marked on the card by the authorities, which is highly unlikely. The only clue we have at the moment to suggest a terrorist might be present in society are those from the Middle East or have a Middle Eastern appearance and/or a practising muslim. And even then one cannot generalise all muslims as potential terrorists. We could all be potential terrorists. No ID card will solve this problem.
Getting back to the immigration problem, if the Australian government is truly worried about terrorists entering its borders posing as refugees, the implications of the London bombings now shows the terrorists can be living as ordinary Australian citizens, in which case what's the point of holding refugees in detention? The government can avoid the problems experienced with Ms Rau simply by giving her a temporary home within the Australian community to reside while her status was determined by DIMIA staff and other authorities.
Actually, make sure the home is expensive aka Kirribilli House and all paid for by DIMIA and you can be sure DIMIA staff would be quick to determine Ms Rau's status just to save money.
Combine this with a nationally accessible database of missing persons and DIMIA staff should be able to quickly determine the status of any alleged refugee later found to be an Australian citizen.
UPDATE
19 July 2005
To give the impression the Federal Government has a heart, Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone approved a bridging visa for the longest-serving detainee in Australian history named Peter Qasim. After waiting for more than 7 years (an absolute shocker), Mr Qasim has thanked his supporters outside the Glenside psychiatric hospital where he is currently being treated.
UPDATE
22 July 2005
It seems Ms Vanstone really can't take a hint. The latest scandal to rock the Immigration Minister is the claim from Ms Vanstone that the reason why two children were forcibly taken from an Australian school over four months ago and held against their will at Villawood Detention Centre until their release on Wednesday 20 July 2005 is because the mother of the children locked away in the Centre because of a false passport had requested it.
The children, aged 12 and 6 at the time the authorities barged into the classroom of Stanmore Public School on 8 March 2005 to kidnap the children, disagreed. And now the mother has said to her lawyer Michaela Byers that under no circumstances did she ask to have her children by her side at the Detention Centre. She wanted her children to stay with their aunt for the sake of educating her children at the public school.
Ms Byers is also confirming the children were legally able to stay in Australia at the time they were forcibly detained by immigration authorities. This was earlier proven when a departmental review of the children's case showed they were held in the detention centre illegally and should be released.
Ms Vanstone continues to defend the original decision to detain the eldest child Ian Hwang and his sibling Janie on the grounds the mother wanted her children to be by her side.
As Ms Byers said:
"Right from the beginning, she has instructed me she did not ask for the children to be with her in detention. She wanted them to remain with their aunty and continue at school.
'The department [DIMIA] is trying to short-track us from making a wrongful detention claim by saying that the mother gave her consent or asked for the children to be arrested." (Glendinning, Lee & Humphries, David. Vanstone pressed to explain latest bungle: The Sydney Morning Herald. 23-24 July 2005, p.9.)
Ms Vanstone is currently looking for a better explanation as to why this latest case was poorly handled by DIMIA.
On the positive side, the Federal Court has ruled that the Federal Government must first prove the country of origin for refugees is safe before ever attempting to deport them. It is good to see the courts are good for something these days.
UPDATE
24 August 2005
Yet another disgraceful case emerged today showing how the Federal Government through DIMIA is stuffing up the lives of refugees. The latest news concerns a 79-year-old Syrian grandmother named Mrs Aziza Agha. Arriving in September 2004, Mrs Agha was permitted to stay in Australia for a period of 6 months on a VISA issued by DIMIA so she can meet her Lebanese family. Towards the end of her stay, Mrs Agha fell ill and asked DIMIA for an extension to her VISA until she was fit. She obtained a doctor's certificate proving she was too ill to leave the country. But this was not to the satisfaction of DIMIA. So what did DIMIA do? The department got their own government-employed doctor to check her out and ordered the woman to walk into the doctor's office. The woman was forced to come in only to find the doctor would not appear in the office to inspect her health. Instead, the doctor wrote another doctor's certificate claiming the woman was fit to leave the country.
Two days later, Mrs Agha died. Her death certificate shows the cause of death was a heart attack. But Melbourne doctor Chris Towie who provided the initial doctor's certificate came out scathing of the Federal Government's handling of the woman saying to the media that he blamed the Government for her death. He believes the heart attack was caused by the stress on Mrs Agfa in a foreign country and to come in to see another doctor on the threat of being immediately deported if she refused.
Mr Towie said:
"I believe that Mrs Agha would not have died of it was not for the harrassment by the Department of Immigration.
'She was an elderly lady who was in no condition to be dealing with the bureaucratic requirements that were placed on her.
'She was really very frail and very distressed, begging for mercy." (The Australian: Woman dies 'after DIMIA harassment'. 24 August 2005.)
Her death occurred nearly two weeks ago proving all the kafuffle to make leadership changes at the top of DIMIA at the request of Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone (to protect herself) had made no difference. The bad attitude at DIMIA with the quiet blessing of Ms Vanstone continues unabated.
This latest case of a refugee strongly suggests one has to get to the top and remove the Minister responsible for running the portfolio (i.e. Amanda) if the problem is to be partially solved (and a new more compassionate government to solve it properly). Unfortunately Australian Prime Minister John Howard wouldn't have the guts to make the necessary changes. Amanda is too valuable to him.
And life at the top is too good for the politicians.
In the meantime, DIMIA has tried to defend its action claiming the woman was given the option to have the doctor visit her in the home. The family of the deceased woman claimed otherwise saying they were not made aware of this option.
Can a R-wing government come up with compassionate and original solutions?
Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone believes she has found a more compassionate way to house refugees in detention centres. After spending more than two years in her portfolio and careful thinking of the problem, she has finally realised that instead of the Nazi-looking harsh razor-wire fence around detention centres, it would be better to pull it down and replace it with a more pleasing "electrified" fence. Nothing like a little bit of superficial changes to make the entire detention centres look pleasant on the eyes. Still it doesn't quite have the look and feel of a holiday resort, does it?
Any chance Mr Howard will relinquish Kirribilli House to house a few long-standing refugees?
More insights
A damning report into the treatment of Vivian Alvarez Solon, was released on 7 October 2005. Known as the Comrie report, it stated DIMIA had "catastrophic" failures in its handling of the Australian. It even went as far as to say there was indeed a cover up by some DIMIA staff as the culture of poor treatment and hiding of the truth by those in the know became increasingly entrenched. Now whether these people were following the orders from higher superiors (possibly Ms Vanstone) to behave in this way is hard to tell at the moment. The staff responsible were named. However, none are prepared to discuss the case in detail. In fact, it is unlikely any action will be taken because at least one staff has already retired and others have moved on to other jobs. How convenient?!
As for Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone, she has denied knowledge of the poor practices employed by DIMIA. In fact, in poor tastes, Ms Vanstone took this opportunity to make a joke despite the seriousness of the situation.
As Wendy Tse of Dickson, Canberra, said:
"It is extremely distressing that in light of the Comrie report on the treatment of Vivian Alvarez (CT October 7, p.1) that the Minister in charge, Senator Amanda Vanstone, should find it in her to joke by making a reference to Elton John's song I'm Still Standing.
'The fact that she was the only one chuckling was a poignant moment that signified her lack of actual remorse and responsibility, and her general detachment from this "catastrophic" embarressment." (The Canberra Times: No joking matter. 8 October 2005, p.B8.)
Former immigration minister Mr Andrew Ruddock would not acknowledge responsibility for the situation at DIMIA. Instead he tried to shrug off the problems at DIMIA saying he is no longer working in the portfolio.
Even more concerning is the decision by Australian Prime Minister John Howard to continue giving his full confidence to Ms Vanstone and her work. Mr Howard's explanation for this is revealed in his quote:
"If somebody in a remote part of the department makes a mistake, to automatically say because of that mistake the minister has to resign, it would mean that ministers would be resigning all the time through no personal failing of their own." (Kerr, Joseph. Wrongly detained — for three years: The Sydney Morning Herald. 8-9 October 2005, p.7.)
Well, it is a little more than a mistake at DIMIA, Mr Howard. There wasn't any attempt to remedy the situation when DIMIA staff found out. Something told the staff not to pursue the case hoping that by covering it up no one would ever find out. Clearly this is not the sign of an independent-thinking department free from the shackles of the iron-fisted and incompassionate Minister Vanstone.
The department is forced to follow policies from the Minister right down to the letter or people will face the sack. Doesn't matter if the policies are too harsh. It would not be surprising, therefore, if a few unspoken policies were also mentioned in the top echelons of the department with the Minister to get certain DIMIA staff to behave in the way they did while pretending everything is under control.
Makes you wonder what kind of scandal would it take to have a Minister of Ms Vanstone's standing to resign at the request of the Prime Minister? And it isn't the first time Ms Vanstone has been in hot water.
Just what would it take to get the Minister to resign? Perhaps Ms Vanstone needs to be photographed at a detention centre wearing nothing but a leather and lace lingerie together with a large wip in one hand as she dishes out a harsh regime of S&M torture to the refugees. Would this be enough for her to resign if the photographs were to get released to the public?
As for the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigating 220 cases of possible wrongful detention, Ombudsman John McMillan discovered a refugee detained for 1,272 days (or nearly 3.5 years), and 50 refugees were detained with no signs DIMIA would make a decision because the department's records were not up-to-date or had incorrect information. Limited by funding, Mr McMillan said it could take up to two years to investigate the remaining cases. Until then, he is not sure how many refugees could be wrongfully detained.
The Federal Government is debating whether to continue funding the Ombudsman or not. Don't expect a decision any time soon.
Manipulating the legislation in favour of supporting a R-wing government's refugee position
In a scathing 46-page report issued on 9 February 2006 by Commonwealth Ombudsman John McMillan, it stated that the Howard Government had deliberately manipulated Section 501 of the Migration Legislation. In what way? Since November 1998, Section 501 was manipulated in such a way as to give complete power to the Immigration Minister to decide when to cancel visas of non-citizens entering Australia without subject to any judicial review.
And why stop there? The Immigration Minister could have the power to decide how long it should take to grant a visa to non-citizens or when to allow refugees to enter the Australian community if at all.
The critical thing is the lack of judicial review of the Minister's decision which is disturbing to say the least.
And why give so much power to the Minister?
In 1997, the Howard Government introduced a piece of legislation known as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions Relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1998 (No.2). It didn't get through parliament before the election year in 1998. But when the Howard Government was returned to office, a former Victorian assistant treasurer, Mr Rod Kemp, quietly tabled the bill and asked that it be "incorporated" in Hansard, a document for recording the day-to-day proceedings in parliament. This would force the Senate to debate the bill again.
Not drawn to the attention of parliamentary members when the bill was cunningly reintroduced for debate was an introductory speech prepared by immigration bureaucrats. It would have explained why the bill was developed. Mr Kemp should have read this, but he didn't. What it said in part was as follows:
"The purpose of this bill is to ensure the Government can effectively discharge its fundamental responsibility to prevent the entry and stay in Australia of non-citizens who have a criminal background or criminal associations...
'In a world of rapidly increasing people movements, our immigration arrangements must be designed to streamline the entry and stay of all genuine visitors, students, business people and permanent residents. However, a small proportion of non-citizens seeking to enter Australia do have substantial criminal backgrounds. Others commit crimes in Australia....In broad terms, the bill seeks to enhance the Government's ability to deal with non-citizens who are not of good character..." (Ramsey, Alan. Soft targets denied 'a fair go': The Sydney Morning Herald. 4-5 March 2006, p.37.)
So how does the bill intend to deal with non-citizens allegedly not having good character? The Immigration Minister would be "given powers to act decisively on matters of visa refusal, cancellation and the removal of non-citizens."
So why was the bill introduced in the first place? According to the Kemp speech:
"Over the past 12 months or so, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has made a number of character decisions clearly at odds with community standards and expectations. The AAT has found a number of non-citizens, convicted of serious crimes, to be of good character, and ruled they should be given a visa. This has alarmed the community. And, I might say, when they are aware of these decisions, they hold the Government, and not the AAT, responsible.
'In summary, this bill sends a clear and unequivocal message on behalf of the Australian community [which] expects non-citizens coming to Australia should be of good character. To discharge this expectation, the Government must have the ability to act quickly and decisively, whenever necessary, to remove non-citizens not of good character." (Ramsey, Alan. Soft targets denied 'a fair go': The Sydney Morning Herald. 4-5 March 2006, p.37.)
The bill was debated on 23 November 1998. An experienced Melbourne lawyer and Labor member Mr Barney Cooney understood the legal implications of the bill when he said in a speech to parliament:
"This [bill] gives the minister great power — a power not subject to judicial review.
'Parliament makes the laws, it pursues a policy. The courts should stay out of policy matters. But sub-section 501 (6) is not a policy matter. It is a matter of applying a set of criteria to identify whether a whole series of points of evidence are such as to exclude a person. That is very much a judicial exercise. Yet this proposed section excludes any judicial review of the minister's position." (Ramsey, Alan. Soft targets denied 'a fair go': The Sydney Morning Herald. 4-5 March 2006, p.37.)
All seven democrats and two independents — Green's Senator Bob Brown and Perth's Dee Margetts — agreed there was too much power to the Immigration Minister and not enough intervention by the courts to allow the bill to pass. However, in some incredible luck for the Howard Government, opposition leader Mr Kim Beazley and most of his supporters didn't see the legal implications of the bill and instead voted with the Government two days later to allow the bill to pass without amendment.
A week later the Upper House passed the legislation on 2 December 1998 and ever since the law has quietly been in use by two Immigration Ministers under the Howard Government.
Now the Commonwealth Ombudsman has had another swipe at Section 501 saying the Government has manipulated the law so it can deport several hundred individuals it didn't want including babies born in another country without reviewing the cases with the courts or the Australian community.
This explains why Australian citizens were wrongly deported. A lack of identifying information to help the Minister determine a person's citizenship meant it is easy to use Section 501 to remove people from Australia if the conduct is seen as dubious to say the least such as those with mental illness.
A review of deportations by the Ombudsman shows the law was used extensively under former Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock, but much less so under Amanda Vanstone. However, the problem with the law remains. As McMillan reported:
"Over recent years, s501 has been used increasingly to cancel visas for long-term permanent residents. That is, people who have lived in Australia more than 10 years. This is a use not made explicit in [his 1998 parliamentary speech] by the then minister. Nor was it clear the majority of cancellation decisions of permanent residency would be made personally by the minister [Philip Ruddock].
'Decisions by delegates of the minister to cancel a visa on character grounds under s501 are reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Decisions made personally by the minister are not reviewable. They are also subject to the privative clause in the act [which] is final and conclusive and cannot be challenged in any court..." (Ramsey, Alan. Soft targets denied 'a fair go': The Sydney Morning Herald. 4-5 March 2006, p.37.)
Can a R-wing government genuinely show compassion?
An extraordinary move by an extraordinary Australian Federal Government. Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone has approved the release of 25 refugees, mostly from Afghanistan and Iran held for 4 years at the Nauru detention centre, into the Australian community in Melbourne. Surprisingly, to avoid getting suddenly deported under the new terrorism laws, the refugees claim they have no bitterness towards the Government. Perhaps a new condition of entry into the Australian mainland for the refugees?
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government acknowledges the forced detention of young people is a form of child abuse. As John Truman of Chatswood, NSW, said:
"Finally, the Federal Government is forced to admit its detention centres were a legalised form of child abuse as it acknowledges the harm done to Shayan Badraie ("Imigration hit by day of backdowns", March 3).
'Now we can expect John Howard, Philip Ruddock et al to claim they had no knowledge of the abuse as they had not received a departmental memo saying "we are setting up child abuse systems at Woomera and Villawood"." (The Sydney Morning Herald: War direct result of the way some business is done (Opinion and Letters). 4-5 March 2006, p.36.)
Not long after this move, Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone has granted refugee status to 42 West Papuan asylum seekers. Could this be a record for her?
Of course, you can;t please all of the people all of the time. We learn Indonesia isn't happy with Vanstone's move. The nation recalled its ambassador from Australia and gave a stern statement to the Australian ambassador in Jakarta. This is followed by Indonesian police acting violently against West Papuan citizens. It is not clear how such action will improve the situation for Indonesia.
As we see it, the asylum seekers made the journey to Australia on their own claiming they were persecuted by Indonesians and were subject under Australian law and UN human rights to be protected. Indonesia later complained they didn't get the opportunity to explain their side of the story and why they wanted the asylum seekers returned after the decision was made. But it would appear the Indonesians procrastinated on their explanation to Australia and now the Immigration Minister has granted temporary protection visas on the grounds the asylum seekers could be persecuted.
The violent acts by Indonesian police on 25 March 2006 only serves to reinforce this view by the asylum seekers.
The concern Indonesia has is that approving protection visas is equivalent to saying Australia supports a West Papua independent nation instead of seeing the Indonesian sovereign right over the nation. Clearly this needs a good talking over between the Australian and Indonesian leaders to iron out the differences.
The fear expressed by Indonesian authorities stems from Australia's involvement in East Timor which led to the tiny nation's independence from Indonesia.
If the relationship between Indonesia and Australia is worth anything, Indonesia should be strong enough not to be concerned by this decision. Australia has no intention of making West Papua an independent nation unless Indonesia does something terrible to the indigenous people. Indonesia just needs to treat people well if it is going to have genuine peace over the long term.
Seriously, it is up to Indonesia to treat the citizens of West Papua well to avoid this situation. If it can't, Australia can only make decisions based on the evidence it sees to protect Indonesian/West Papuan people on a purely human rights level. It is not an attempt by any means to stop Indonesia from owning West Papua.
In the meantime Australia should gather the evidence to determine the truth behind the refugee's claims and present them to Indonesia who in turn must do their own investigations and give their own explanation. Let's see how consistent the claims are and who is closer to the truth.
In fact, at the time this situation was unfolding between Australia and Indonesia, evidence was emerging of senior Indonesian police and military commanders who were previously involved in violent acts against East Timorese being moved to Papua from 2000. Not a good sign for Indonesia. Then we have statements from the refugees saying the following things (Forbes, Mark. More rumbles in the jungle — a far cry from freedom: The Sydney Morning Herald. 8-9 April 2006, p.33.):
"...I had been outspoken and became aware of being a target for assassinations. They [the Indonesian security forces] had maps identifying the houses and the intelligence services had lists. We were No.4 on the list." (Papuan tribal chief and leader of the separatist movement Theys Eluay)
'When I gave birth to my children in the hospital, there are police there posing as medical people. They wanted me to have an operation but I refused. I was very frightened.
'They [the Indonesian police] would rape them [other Papuan women in the villages] in front of everyone, in front of the parents. They would dump the bodies in the lake, and the parents' bodies too." (Kambu)
Other asylum seekers have supported these statements. To make the case for the asylum seekers more potent, we find a US State Department report published in 2006 stating:
"[Indonesian] security forces murdered, tortured, raped, beat and arbitrarily detained civilians and members of separatisy movements, especially in Aceh and to a lesser extent in Papua." (Forbes, Mark. More rumbles in the jungle — a far cry from freedom: The Sydney Morning Herald. 8-9 April 2006, p.33.)
We can see why Indonesia is upset with Australia's decision. It has all the hallmarks of another East Timor.
If Indonesia is so worried, why doesn't it stop focussing on Australia's decision and start looking at itself and get the evidence to see if the asylum seekers are telling the truth or not? If Indonesia wants so much for these allegations from civilians and the conclusion from a US report never to see the light of day, go to the source of the problem and verify the information before condemning Australia.
The global community would like to know what kind of evidence Indonesia has to show this is not the situation in West Papua.
UPDATE
13 April 2006
Instead of waiting for Indonesia to provide the evidence, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government through Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone has decided to change the laws anyway. Now this supposedly highly developed and advanced nation we call Australia has decided it is okay to transport refugees to Nauru and another island outside Australia for processing. It doesn't matter if the refugees arrive on the Australian mainland. They will be deported to an island where Australian law does not apply. And if the people are genuine refugees, they will be sent to other countries for settlement.
In addition, Australia will work with Indonesia to increase patrols in the seas between West Papua and Australia to help stop those genuine, would-be West Papuan refugees fleeing from their nation. It doesn't matter if they are persecuted.
The extension of the 2001 "Pacific solution" to cover the West Papuan refugee problem and increase patrol in the north has quietly pleased Indonesia to no bounds. Not so for the lawyer of the 42 West Papuan refugees/Indonesians who fears other West Papuan refugees will be forced back home or, if they make it through, get deported to islands where processing times by the Immigration Department are unknown compared to being expeditiously processed if the refugees were held on the mainland.
Why is Indonesia dictating Australia's immigration policy without solid evidence to back up its claim? Here we have Indonesia deciding the future of Australians caught up in the drug trade on Indonesian soil. And Indonesia makes it very clear to everyone how it wants Australia to respect Indonesian laws. Yet we find Indonesia can't respect the rules of Australia when it comes to the handling of refugees?
If there is evidence to suggest the refugees' claims are wrong, Indonesia should provide what it knows. If not, Australia could well be breaking its own international responsibilities in looking after genuine refugees.
Of course, trying to get Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone to explain the logic of her latest decision is like speaking to a brick wall. Ms Vanstone has her own special "R-wing" or "sticking to her guns" approach for justifying the latest laws.
We wonder, is Ms Vanstone being forced to toe the line at the request of Prime Minister John Howard to appease Indonesia?
Perhaps Mr Howard had made a deal with Indonesia in the past to reduce the number of refugees travelling to Australia through the gateway offered by Indonesia in return for something else, and so make Mr Howard look like he has done something right with his harsh immigration policy (it doesn't look like it from the above-mentioned discussions). Except Indonesia is now worried West Papua might become the new East Timor. But because Indonesia probably hasn't got any evidence to prove its own security forces are innocent, it has to use the deal as a bargaining chip to force Mr Howard to harden his stance on refugees.
Otherwise it would be several thousand refugees every year arriving to Australia instead of the trickle happening today. Not good for a "R-wing" Prime Minister facing an election year in 2007 and the present scandal with AWB.
Better still, why doesn't the Indonesian government do a little investigating of their own and deal with its own rampant military forces in West Papua? Still don't know where to start? Perhaps the following the statement from Vic Adams in Reid, Canberra, might provide some clues:
"I have just heard announced the Howard Government's reintroduction of the "Pacific solution" to deal with West Papuan refugees.
'What a duplicitous, servile attempt to appease Indonesia.
'It is amazing how short memories are. It is a historical fact the Indonesian military invaded West Papua in the 1960s, and the same military rounded up 1022 locals out of a population of a million to vote unanimously for West Papua's inclusion in Indonesia in the dodgy "Act of Free Choice" in 1969.
'Indonesia since then has practised genocide towards the locals along with resources-rape of the country.
'For example, in 1999, an independent investigation confirmed a report that Indonesian troops massacred and dumped at sea the bodies of West Papuan anti-Indonesian demonstrators from the island of Biak, off the northern coast of Papua. Thirty-two bodies were later recovered.
'There are other genocidal incidents too numerous to mention, especially around the notorious Freeport mine.
'How Australia can have our refugee policy determined by Indonesia and why we don't support independence for these people is beyond me." (The Canberra Times: Howard showing weakness in face of Indonesian bullying (Letters to the Editor). 15 April 2006, p.18.)
It is simple. Indonesia determines to truth behind these allegations and stops this brutality straight away so there is no reason for West Papuans wanting to leave the nation and there should not be any more concerns among Indonesians about Australia creating another independent state just like East Timor, this time for West Papua.
UPDATE
15 April 2006
Indonesia may not be happy, but neither are the Churches in Australia. The Uniting Church president, the Reverend Dr Dean Drayton, said:
"It is a sad day for Australia when its government shelves our commitment to uphold the basic human rights of all people." (Howden, Saffron & Gartrell, Adam. Outrage at new refugee policy: The Canberra Times. 15 April 2006, p.1.)
And that's just putting it mildly!
Church leaders have used the Easter occasion to go much further by attacking the "market-driven economic policies, rampant materialism and political leaders playing hard and fast with the truth" (Downie, Graham. Truth is a casualty: churches: The Canberra Times. 15 April 2006, p.2.)
Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn George Browning said in his Easter message:
"Truth seems to have become a very serious casualty in these first few years of the 21st century, both at home and abroad.
'Daily, new half-truths are being promulgated. This is probably inevitable when the ultimate good in world affairs seems to be a market-driven economy, where an "edge" or advantage has to be achieved.
'As serious and as blatant as these half-truths are, is it not more serious that those of us who have been able to access the machinery of wealth, as fleeting as it may prove to be, do not seem to care?
'It seems that we can forgive almost anything, even matters that are scandalous to us, as long as we are reassured that our more than confortable lifestyles are secure." (Downie, Graham. Truth is a casualty: churches: The Canberra Times. 15 April 2006, p.2.)
The Catholic Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn Francis Carroll said in his Easter message:
"The poverty of Jesus offers the cure for a world ravaged by materialism and greed.
'How can affluent people and countries like Australia justify the wasteful way of life of the "throw away society" when faced with the countless millions who daily face death from hunger, disease and homelessness?
'The self-sacrificing love of Christ must surely challenge a sense of justice and the spirit of compassion. Jesus had died giving witness to the truth.
'Political propaganda, professional spin doctors, commercial advertising and media manipulation so often make a mockery of truth.
'From the cross, Jesus had spoken words of forgiveness and his self-sacrificing death was to bring reconciliation between God and his people and to inaugurate the reign of mutual love.
'Australians urgently needed to hear that message of forgiveness and reconciliation.
'So too does the wider world where an "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" seems to be the language of terrorism and national conflicts.
'The greatest lesson of Easter is that of hope — the cross of death has become the tree of life. A fearful world becoming paranoid with security needs to overcome fear with love, hear and heed the message of hope so as to know the gift of peace." (Downie, Graham. Truth is a casualty: churches: The Canberra Times. 15 April 2006, p.2.)
Then we see Mr Howard attend a church service in Easter as if he is claiming he follows religious moral values in the Bible to the letter. Is this another half-truth we are witnessing here?
UPDATE
18 April 2006
Indonesia wants to hear no further insults from Australia and the world concerning the West Papuan refugee problem. Well, there is a simple solution. Investigate the behaviour of Indonesian security forces in West Papua, gather the evidence and present it to the world like a grown up and intelligent nation should. And fix the problem. And if it turns out the world is wrong, then we apologise. But if Indonesia is wrong in their treatment of West Papuan people, it is time to be a mature adult by fixing up the problem. End of story.
For if Indonesia is found to be treating its own citizens badly, there is no one else to blame but itself.
UPDATE
20 May 2006
Indonesia's solution to the West Papuan claims of violence appears to be to ask Australia to include a clause in the proposed security treaty with Indonesia to state that Australia will reject Papuan claims in the future. This is like saying Germany should ask the U.S. to reject claims of violence committed on Jews living in Germany so the military forces in Germany can continue doing what it wants.
Not that Indonesia is exactly like Germany in World War II. But if there is any evidence of violence against West Papuan citizens, surely it is in the interest of other nations to make sure it is not happening. If Indonesia can't state to the world what it is doing to get to the bottom of the claims before asking other nations not to interfere in Indonesia's sovereign rights, Indonesia should not be surprised if other nations want to know what is going on and, as part of the human rights obligations, help the people who feel threatened and in need of escaping the alleged violence.
Indonesia would look better on the world stage if it could substantiate its own claim of no violence by writing a report and give people in West Papua total freedom to express their views.
Australia is not the only developed nation to talk tough on the refugee problem
It is the U.S. turn to talk tough with illegal immigrants. The latest plan from none other than another R-wing politician named Mr George W. Bush is to build a longer wall between the US and Mexico (sounds remarkably similar to Israel's controversial plan for a wall between Palestine and Israel) and physically deport the 12 million immigrants living illegally in the U.S. if they don't have the proper paperwork.
Mr Bush wants an orderly approach for people entering the US by the poorer immigrants who want nothing more than money and jobs to survive. At most, he only wants to give no more than 400,000 visas a year. And if the immigrants work really hard and perhaps even start up a business to support other people in the US, you might get full citizenship. Basically anything to support the US economy.
Otherwise immigrants must get in line like everyone else to get visas and possibly receive full citizenship.
As Mr Bush said:
"I think a program that will work is somebody working on a temporary basis with a tamper-proof ID card.
'And if they want to become a citizen, they can get in line, but not the head of the line.
'We don't want people sneaking into our country that are going to do jobs Americans won't do. We want then coming in in an orderly way — which will take pressure off both our borders." (The Canberra Times: Bush talks tough in Mexico on illegals. 1 April 2006, p.15.)
Let's face it. The immigrants aren't terrorists. They are there to survive. They need jobs. And they are willing to do things the Americans don't or prefer not to do. They aren't going to disappear simply by building a bigger wall. And how will the deportation of 12 million illegal immigrants living in the US help?
Come to think of it, how feasible is it to deport 12 million people?
On hearing this, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thought the US should "get real" and acknowledge immigrants are a fact of life:
"We're not going to deport 12 million people, so let's stop this fiction. Let's give them permanent status." (The Canberra Times: Bush talks tough in Mexico on illegals. 1 April 2006, p.15.)
Although Mr Bloomberg supports tighter border security, he feels the physical deportation of 12 million people in the US is totally unrealistic.
However a more secure border is not going to stop immigrants entering the US. The reality is that a growing number of poor people are knocking harder and stronger on the door to the US. And some will be smart enough to bypass all forms of security, no matter how tamper-proof US authorities might think.
Until there is a change in attitude in how we solve poverty and insecurity running at the heart of the immigration debate, we will see the US constantly dealing with illegal immigrants for as long as people maintain the US economy and Mr Bush wants to invade other nations to supposedly solve terrorism.
Don't provide legal assistance to refugees
Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard wanted to pass through controversial legislation forcing all refugees coming to Australia (women and children included) to be sent to the island of Nauru where it is impossible for them to get legal assistance as it is outside the Australian legal jurisdiction. Refugees will effectively be put into legal limbo and forced to stay on the island indefinitely until refugees cry out for the Australian government to return them to the place of persecution or hardship they originally tried to escape. Mr Howard claims the legislation is merely to make border protection stronger even though he has admitted the current protection is already the strongest ever.
As one person remarked, if Jesus, Mary and Joseph were refugees, they would not be accepted into Australia based on current protection laws under the Howard Government.
UPDATE
14 August 2006
For the first time in his 10-year history as Prime Minister, Mr Howard was forced to back down on his controversial refugee legislation as too many coalition senators and Family First member were against it. It was refused not because it would be inhumane to the refugees, but rather Australia was appeasing Indonesia. If Indonesia did not push for the legislation, the same members would probably have supported it.
Election years have a knack of getting R-wing governments to do the right thing for refugees
In anticipation of the Australian federal election year, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government has improved the conditions within Australia's five mainland immigration detention centres according to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in a report issued on 19 January 2007. Better attitude of immigration staff towards detainees, better programs and activities to improve the skills and mental health of those detained, and a better physical environment are among those improvements noted by the Commission as being significant.
All that remains now is to abolish mandatory detention laws.
While it seems one of the golden rules of any politician facing an election year is never make a decision that would be unpopular among the masses, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard has succeeded in breaking that golden rule. On 18 April 2007, Mr Howard announced a controversial agreement with the US to exchange around 200 refugees that would be destined for processing on the island of Nauru to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. In return, US President George W. Bush will gladly send 200 of his Cuban refugees to Nauru. This expensive exercise is presumably designed to get it into the refugees' head that there is no way they can ever reach the Australian (or US) mainland unless they follow certain procedures and rules set up by these governments through the immigration laws. And given how harshly Mr David Hicks has been treated at Guantanamo Bay, Mr Howard must be hoping this would be the trick to stopping the torrent of refugees passing through Indonesia and heading straight to Australia.
Okay. Then tell us Mr Howard, would happen when there's a mass exodus of refugees coming from low-lying countries in 50 years time when the oceans rise a couple of metres? How would a similar-thinking R-wing government handle this situation — send more refugees to the United States? Or send them all to Nauru? Is this a sensible decision?
"You do as you are told and you will not be sent half-way around the other side of the world," is the new official policy coming from the two leaders of these supposedly developed nations. Yet hundreds of thousands of Asians on working VISAS can enter Australia (and other immigrants in the US). The only difference: people with VISAS appear to have some valuable skills needed by the two leaders to support their economies. Must be a clue to solving the problem somewhere in all of this.
Given the cost of transporting refugees from one continent to another (we estimate around A$2,000 each including security plus the usual cost of feeding and placing them in detention for an indeterminate amount of time), wouldn't it be more productive to train the refugees with valuable skills they can take back to their homeland or use in Australia or the United States? An extraordinary waste of money.
For Mr Howard to make a decision along these lines, it must be a sign of a desperate leader facing demise at the next election as if the wheels are starting to come off the Howard political wagon. It is either that, or all the policies so far on handling illegal refugees are not working. And when something is not working, Mr Howard's rational solution is to send the refugees to the other side of the world. So on the one hand we have people smugglers sending refugees on boats to Australia. And now we have the Australian Government finishing off the process by paying for plane tickets to send them to the United States. We hope this isn't a cynical attempt by Mr Howard to determine whether some refugees are terrorists and, if so, try to get rid of a few terrorists (and the rest of the refugees) should the plane be hijacked and brought down by US fighter jets before reaching the American mainland.
Nothing like trying to convince voters of the importance of keeping Mr Howard and the US Republicans in office by reminding them of the dangers of terrorists in our midst.
Anyway, what's rational about the solution agreed by Mr Howard? A number of commentators on the other hand are saying the decision is bordering on "bizarre".
Clearly someone is not thinking right.
UPDATE
July 2014
The Abbott Government is experiencing considerable difficulties in using the claim that it cannot comment on "operational matters" relating to the picking up (and even processing) of refugees coming to Australia by boat. Such a term is only used in combat situations, but it seems the government feels it is under attack from refugees and feels threatened in some way. Perhaps they are worried terrorists might be entering Australia?
Even so, those who are genuine asylum seekers escaping from persecution are at risk under the Abbott government of being turned back. So, the best the government can do to find out is apply a quick processing of refugees at sea by asking four questions. Depending on the nature of the questions and how it is framed (again, these are not revealed for "operational matters"), it is likely many genuine asylum seekers will be put in a distinct disadvantage. For example, if the Australian Government asks, "Can you sing the Australian anthem?", a lot of refugees will probably fail.
On top of this, many refugees kept in detention centres controlled by the Australian government are still there for more than 12 months. The lengthy stay and lack of hope is bringing out cases of women and men taking it upon themselves to commit self-harm. Mr Abbott hears about these cases and realising the public has learned about them too has decided to justify his tough position by saying that he will not be" morally blackmailed" by some action. Interesting. So where did he get independent advice to support his position?
The Abbott government is now bordering on failing to meet its international obligations to look after the refugees, especially if a number of them who are likely to be genuine asylum seekers.
Significant compensation to the refugees
The largest human rights settlement in Australian history will be provided to refugees at Manus island. In a class action brought about by an army of doctors, psychiatrists and psychologists and led by Slater and Gordon, the Federal Government has agreed to settle the compensation outside court on 14 June 2017. The aim of the class action was to show the government had breached their duty of care by providing substandard conditions, including inadequate medical treatment. For some reason, and in an attempt to avoid showing liability, the government decided to settle out-of-court, with a figure of $90 million ($20 million goes to the lawyers) to be distributed to the 1,500 refugees (although 500 of them have already gone to other countries).
Does this mean Australian taxpayers can expect to see this compensation figure repeated for the next group of poorly-treated refugees in 5 years time, and every 5 years thereafter? At what point will the government realise treating refugees may actually have a financial benefit to taxpayers (i.e., save money) and make Australia look like a model world citizen in treating disadvantaged people seeking asylum from other nations?
What is the solution?
A brief look at the observations is making it clear that there is a refugee crisis, and is happening worldwide as we speak. The presence of refugees is not a new phenomenon. People have been moving to distant lands to get away from something they could not control throughout human history. It happened just prior to and at the end of the great Ice Ages. And the last major movement of refugees was from the last world war and just prior to the start of the Cold War between the United States and Russia. Now the signs are on the wall yet again and this time in greater numbers thanks to war-torn places such as Syria and Sudan. Bad enough that we have incompassionate and unintelligent political leaders of certain nations with short-sighted solutions of either more war, or to see people starve to death, or hope market forces will find the solution quickly enough. Yet the worse is still yet to come. Over the next 25 years, some lands will become inundated with ocean water (such as Bangladesh and a number of islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans), while other places will get so dry that people will no longer be able to grow food for themselves (such as Northern Africa and the Middle East). Combined with the high human population already present in many of these places (since they are unsustainable) and it is clear that more refugees will have to migrate to places where they think life will be better. The issue of refugees confronts virtually every developed nation on the planet. There is no way we can escape it. We clearly have to acknowledge the problem exists. And we must do something about it.
The problem arises because of a number of factors, namely:
- A lack of good education.
- The presence of poor leaders running a country.
- Too much environmental degradation (from natural or man-made causes);
- An expanding high population in a given region; and
- The level of poor treatment by other people;
just to mention a few.
For example, a high population level naturally contributes to the refugee problem by reducing resources in a certain area needed to survive. So naturally a certain number of people have to move from this area to another area to hopefully find the resources they are looking for.
Another factor to contribute to the refugee problem is the high profit and power-mentality of leaders running certain nations. When a leader is poorly educated in ways of solving problems for his people, he is likely to hoard the available resources to himself and become a dictator, and often need the help of his military force and/or like-minded allies in other countries to provide security for the leader. Anyone else who tries to oppose this and restore balance is likely to be eliminated, or create an enduring and potential global war. A classic example of this are the leaders in Zimbabwee, and in North Korea. But we can also see this occurring in Syria.
We also can't ignore the fact that many refugees are not confident in their own abilities to solve problems on their own. This is partly because of bad treatment by others, but mainly because of poor education and limited skills. When people are reasonably well-educated in the essential areas needed to help them solve the needy problems, virtually all will attempt to apply the knowledge in a place where they will call their home, which may be in their own country, or somewhere else. Then the chances of these people becoming refugees is gone.
While the current economic world order continues to be maintained, no leader can afford to ignore the problem. The refugee crisis is here, yet again, and this time it will get worse as the environmental consequences of global warming take hold, not alone the presence of poor world leaders who are more inclined to selfishly maintain power and wealth at the expense of the lives and happiness of his own people. Unless leaders of developed nations take radical steps to curb the influx of refugees today and in the future through effective long-term solutions, the problem will only grow and eventually affect all nations at the economic bottom-line level. Sure, some leaders can take on a tough stance on the issue by subjecting refugees to further harsh treatment (bad enough from their own countries). A classic example, and a personal favourite for R-wing governments, is to deliberately keep them in detention centres indefinitely. Perhaps this approach might teach some refugees not to leave the country of origin. Not really. There is a reason for the migration of people, and we are not solving the core problem. Giving refugees yet more poor treatment is not a viable long-term solution. All such incompassionate efforts is an attempt to cover a major wound with a tiny bandaid in the hope of stemming the blood flow. Yet we are not aware that the cause of the problem is leading to a life threatening situation for humanity very soon.
As time goes by, we should expect a flood of people to come knocking on the door of developed nations, and it will get louder and louder as time goes by. The fundamental issue at the heart of the problem has yet to be addressed. The only way this is going to be solved is for us to think differently, and to do things in a different way.
Firstly, we must realise that in war-torn nations, people need security and for the young people of those nations to have hope for the future that whatever they can contribute will have meaning and great benefit to everyone in their community. Hence any wars in certain countries or ruthless dictators using fear on the people must be dealt with swiftly and promptly or the problem will get out-of-hand and eventually create the refugee problem for other nations.
Secondly, people need food and water to stay alive. For this to happen, we must focus on the environment to grow adequate foods and acquire fresh water not only for the people to stay alive. In essence, we must get nature back to a state that it can develop its own natural recycling systems needed to ensure the food and water is maintained forever.
For both of these situations to happen, there is something we must do. Number one has to be education. In fact, all developed nations must learn to understand the importance of sharing their knowledge, skills, and some of their needy resources with the people of all nations in order for the refugee problem to be solved permanently. We must teach refugees to help themselves by giving them the tools to fix up their problems, and feed them in the interim until they are ready to stand up on their own two feet and do something to solve their own problems.
Education is really the foundation for creating change. But this is just the beginning. The next level up has to be to act on the knowledge by applying solutions.
During the process of applying this knowledge, other nations must share in the resources of food, water and the necessary technologies with the people making the changes. This is essential to help the people stay alive while creating the change, and to establish the natural recycling systems that will allow them to produce their own food and water, and perhaps later to trade surplus food with the world. For this to happen, we need to start up a mini "non-economic" system (if for any reason governments in developed nations cannot provide enough well-paid and meaningful jobs in the economic system where money can be earned by the refugees where they can share it with the family back home and purchase the needy things). Within this new system, new projects must be designed to rebuild the environment and grow food, and to protect the precious fresh water supplies. All the skills and knowledge refugees need to achieve this must be provided. It can be done either in the country they are living in, or surrounding detention centres and expanding it for the number of refugees there are. In the latter case, education should be supplemented with actual opportunities to apply the knowledge by building up the natural environment in the host country. If the work done is of a high standard, a reward system of allowing some refugees to stay in the country should be provided. Otherwise, everyone else should be able to return to their own country or neighbouring countries that need these skills and knowledge to rebuild their own natural environments. In most cases, people will want to return to their own countries, so long as the place is safe and free from fear and violence from others living in those countries (and hence it is vitally important for those nations to be run by benevolent and highly intelligent leaders who can think long-term).
In terms of the types of technologies world nations helping the refugees should supply, these should include massive bulldozers to reshape the land to begin the process of collecting fresh water and channelling any excess water to other areas, large quantities of gardening tools, solar panels to charge up the new technologies and allow people to save time on tasks such as washing clothes or purifying water, massive desalination plants and water pumps to help push the water to where the land will be converted into a new natural environment filled with trees and places to grow food.
This type of non-economic system should not be a financial burden on any world government in a developed nation, at least not in the long term. The whole purpose of such a system is to do away with money altogether and focus on the things that we all need to survive. And in return, the cost to the economy gripped by global warming will drop over time as the natural environment kicks in and does its job properly. If governments are still worried about the cost of producing the technologies and food to support the refugees in their projects as part of the "non-economic" system they are trying to establish, think of it in terms of the savings made when governments do not have to spend billions of dollars in keeping refugees in detention centres. Actually, these governments receiving refugees should be making money in the long-term because the education and implementation of the knowledge to rebuild the land in the places where the governments are supporting them should make the land more productive and able to produce things that can be sold cheaply within those countries and exported to other nations. It really should not cost governments money. It should be creating money as the systems come into play and do their thing. And if we need a little more reminding, it is not the government's money. It is taxpayers' money. If taxpayers think this is better use of the money to help people, then it should be applied.
For any new "non-economic" system to work, a reward system is essential for the people working in this new world order. Food and water are just the beginning, and certainly an essential reward. For refugees to learn quickly, work hard for a few years, and come up with original ideas, rewards are the incentive people need to try better and give them hope. And the rewards must be substantial. For example, can certain refugees stay in the developed nation permanently? If this is what they want, we should be able to provide this. Or perhaps the refugees may choose to return home and apply their newly acquired knowledge and skills. Perfectly fine too. Or do they wish to live in the area and maintain the environment? Fine. Build them their own house and let them look after what they have established for the benefit of all and not just for themselves for the rest of their lives.. Remember, the point of having rewards is to give refugees something to reach for and give them hope for the future knowing that they will survive and be happy, and to give them something to strive for and achieve.
At this point, additional education will already come into effect. The refugees will already learn to see the value of differences and different skills among people as a means of finding original solutions and better ways of doing things. This will help to get people to learn to live with other people in a peaceful way. Finally, as enough foods and the development of new plants grow, it will teach people ideas about how to start up a business of their own. Sell the produce they make to people in other communities and ultimately to other nations.
As for leaders of other nations who do not understand the principle of love, all nations must be serious with tackling these leaders who are not behaving as a wise and noble manner and with the genuine love necessary to look after the people under their care. To deal with such incompetent and poorly educated leaders, a reward system should be implemented to help them see the benefits of looking after their own people. Increasing trade, sharing in new technologies arriving on the scene from other nations, allowing them to visit other nations and gather new ideas, and so on, should be just the beginning. Use the carrot, not the stick, approach. It is important to get these leaders up to scratch to where they need to be to truly be a helpful contributor to world peace and humankind as a whole.
If the source problem that some bad leaders have is because they can't see a future beyond their own death and feel a need to treat people badly in return for acquiring wealth and power, we need to deal with this personal issue of death itself. These leaders must remember that we will all live and die. Where we will go after death is not proven, but there is enough indirect evidence suggesting things will be recycled, including life itself. Our true selves will remain stable, but our bodies will change. And where we will live again in the next life is unknown. If this is true, it is likely we will return not as a rich and powerful people, but a commoner. Given the number of people living poorly, the probability is that we will all experience what this commoner of society is as part of the balance of this Universe. Whether this is the way we all must learn about this Universe by experiencing what it is like to be poor is a matter of conjecture. But if you, as a leader, want the probability to be in your favour of at least living a happy next life and with a loving family, irrespective of whether the family itself is rich or not, it is important as a leader to do things now, in the current life, to make it better for all the people in the world (not just in your nation). Certainly the harsh stance on refugees by R-wing people by locking them out of a nation or incarcerating them in a detention centre indefinitely is not going to help (9). Neither is being rich and not helping the poor going to help either. Not even the knowledge of how to be wealthy and powerful will help. Given the limited resources on this planet, it is better to live within your means, enjoy the simple things in life, and ensure there is enough food and water on the table for everyone to be happy.
Should leaders wish to ignore this approach and prefer to harm people of a nation and especially other nations when achieving great wealth and power, they must pay the consequences. Wars will be waged on other nations to remove these leaders if the people themselves cannot do the job properly. But worse of all for these leaders, they will die, and probably come back. Then they must learn to live in a world where war may cause further suffering in the new family they are born in. And that may likely affect them too. We hope this situation is not necessary. By implementing a new world order and a new "non-economic" system across all nations, the benefits of this new system will quickly be seen by all world leaders, and then there will be no need for wars whatsoever. It some ways we may have to do this if the essential aim is to cover all bets of what might happen after our death. Should we return again, at least we have done something to improve our chances of benefiting from this effort.
It is now up to us to do the right thing for everyone if we are to increase the probability of being happy in our next life and the life thereafter and so on should we discover the way the Universe works at the moment of death and coming back to experience life again is the reality.;