Gerry Georgatos
The misappropriation of language and abuse of semantics in reference to ‘perceived people smugglers’ has to begin to change so we do not further erode compassion, and continue to skew the moral compass, bend and circumvent the rule of law- domestic and international.
People who are assisting people in their flight from persecution and in the right to asylum, in accordance to our laws, domestic and international, should be honoured as the heroes they are. The wait for this should not be a generation removed, as is generally the case in the unfolding of social justice and in the eliminating of racism and various abominable prejudices.
There is nothing more honourable than living the moral conviction of saving the lives of others. The 600 souls who have drowned since 2007 in their flight to our shores are the fault of the policies of the Australian government.
Winton Higgins in his book - Journey Into Darkness - describes a visit to the Holocaust Museum in Israel where a note from Australia rests. It is from the Evian Conference 1938 where 22 nations of the Western world convened to discuss the Jewish refugee ‘problem.’ Australia’s response, from T.W. White, is captured in 13 words alone on that note – “We don’t have a racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one.”
Contemporaneously, equivalent racism is mangling the Australian national consciousness. Many are arguing we don’t want to import the ‘Muslim faith’ when this should not even be a discussion point. What has this got to do with humanity? I have interviewed hundreds of Asylum Seekers and all they are seeking is a shot at life and liberty. Most of them don’t practice Islam, just like most Australians do not practice Christianity, it’s a moot point. It does not matter whether someone does practice a particular religion just as much as should not matter what the pigment of someone’s skin is. However to the biased and prejudiced it does matter.
Helping refugees is actually lawful, however magistrates are faced with mangled imposts upon their judgments generated from within the chambers of parliament, by political parties withdrawn from moral leadership and mongered by electoralism; a vicious cycle.
The tenuously political, and racist, mantra of “breaking the people smugglers’ business model” has caused unconscionable damage. I was stunned when a GetUP! Campaign against the Malaysian option quoted, “it is understandable that the Minister cannot offer a blanket exemption to any class of asylum seekers, for fear that the people smugglers will exploit it to their advantage.” Of the hundreds of Asylum Seekers I have interviewed each said to me there was no way to find safe passage from persecution and oppression and the prospect of death without the assistance of those demonised as people smugglers.
They are not people smugglers, they are heroes, whether a few make a quid out of this or not. No one is being smuggled to Australia, and rather people are being saved from the prospect of death or from being conscripted into for instance the Taliban. Australia has deported Asylum Seekers back to Afghanistan and Sri Lanka who were soon murdered.
These heroes are taking great risks and paying enormous amounts of money to officials, police and border controls, and various others, for them to turn a blind eye or to assist with the passage of desperate people, of families.
International human smuggling laws defines itself as human trafficking for prostitution and indentured labour, the forced removal of peoples across borders for “gain, slavery or exploitation.” So, why can’t our news media pick up our parliamentarians on this?
I do not question whether a very few have supposedly profiteered in assisting Asylum Seekers however is this a crime? Migration agents get paid for their services. Ali Jenabi did not profiteer.
If we want to buy into the misappropriated terminology and the myth of a business model then let us consider the words of the Director of Refugee and Asylum Law at the University of Michigan, James Hathaway, “Canada and other developed countries created the market on which smugglers depend by erecting migration walls around their territories. The more difficult it is to get across a border to safety on one's own, the more sensible it is to hire a smuggler to navigate the barriers to entry. Smugglers are thus the critical bridge to get at-risk people to safety. Which one of us, if confronted with a desperate need to flee but facing seemingly impossible barriers, would not seek out a smuggler to assist us?"
However we have to start having a good look at ourselves and what we have bought into - racism of course - when we label people as smugglers for merely saving lives, of families and children we have a real problem of identity and of morality.
Many perceived people smugglers were asylum seekers and refugees and they understand the predicament of their peoples, those persecuted and displaced. Iraqi Ali Jenabi's brother was killed by Saddam Hussein's forces. He arrived in Indonesia penniless and to earn passage for his family to Australia, and which included his mother, sisters, brothers and an uncle he worked for perceived people smugglers. His family finally arrived in 3 separate boats.
Ali Jenabi's humanity continued and he has since helped many others seek passage, including those with no money. He is a hero to the Iraqi communities of Australia however a perceived people smuggler to Prime Minister Julia Gillard. He could face ten years in prison.
Paragraphs 232 and 233 of the Migration Act support the right to Asylum and for Asylum Seekers to be assisted. A few years ago 27 legal experts explained to a Senate Estimates Inquiry that indeed there is nothing unlawful in assisting people with safe passage to foreign shores.
By 1938, about 150,000 German Jews, one in four, had already fled Germany. After Germany annexed Austria in March 1938, an additional 185,000 Jews were brought under Nazi rule. Many Jews were unable to find countries willing to take them in.
Many German and Austrian Jews tried to go to the United States however they could not obtain the visas - there were no "queues". Though news of the violent pogroms of November 1938 was widely reported, Americans remained reluctant to welcome Jewish refugees. In the midst of the Great Depression, many Americans believed that refugees would compete with them for jobs and overburden social programs to assist the needy.
In 1924 the US Congress had set up immigration quotas limiting the number of immigrants and discriminated against groups considered racially and ethnically undesirable. These quotas remained in place even after President Franklin D. Roosevelt, responding to mounting political pressure, called for an international conference to address the refugee problem - the Evian Conference, 1938.
In 2012, miniscule resettlement quotas blight the prospect of humanity and the coalescing of peoples - the concept of civil society is much pummelled by the Commonwealth government and its jurisdictions however it is not the lived experience. Because of the migration walls, people who should have been granted asylum will continue to be deported at higher rates than ever before - even when compared to the Howard/Ruddock years - many of the deportees will be cruelly persecuted and many will be murdered, as has already been the case with some. In protecting migration walls our governments will continue to rely on Kafkaesque principles - building brick by brick these migration walls with mortar that is the blood of those they keep out; who will die in transit, at sea, in detention centres and refugee camps, or languish destitute with no prospect of a helping hand. In an effort to wipe the blood from their hands governments will continue to deny their racism, their disconnection with humanity, and describe those who openly, and with great risk to themselves, assist refugees and displaced peoples in their flight to asylum, as people smugglers - and that they are 'evil scum'.
Gerry Georgatos
PhD researcher Australian Custodial Systems, Masters Social Justice Advocacy, Masters Human Rights Education, Refugee Advocate
0430 657 309
gerry_georgatos@yahoo.com.au
info@humanrightsalliance.org
Recent update (15.8.2012):
http://indymedia.org.au/2012/08/15/human-rights-alliance-media-release-d...
Human Rights Alliance media release:
After having read the report by the three stand alone members of the ‘Expert Panel’ we have found no grounds to suggest that any lives will be protected or saved from returning to the Pacific Solution, and in a form and manner which evidences policy more draconian than John Howard’s Pacific Solution.
Vietnamese, Cambodian and other Indo-Chinese refugees were resettled between 1979 to 1996 predominately through regional camps, such as Galang in Indonesia, and Hei Ling Chau in Hong Kong, amongst others, however there were protections in place which the Panel’s report lacks. Importantly, these camps were overseen by the UNHCR and other government and non-government organisations, and nations such as Australia minimised bureaucracy and resettled expeditiously, comparatively, and in terms of resettlement numbers did not maintain a premise of quota however ventured by a needs-basis.
The regional camps are harsher in conditions, and in the taking of lives, than the Australian Detention Centre network, which in the last two years has cost 7 lives, 6 of them of very young men, and which has led to thousands of people enduring trauma, multiple trauma – acute and chronic, breakdowns – physical and mental – multiple breakdowns, self harm and multiple self harm, languishment in depressions, the onset of various clinical disorders, suicide attempts, multiple suicide attempts, and suicides. Regional camps have higher suicide rates, higher death rates than Australian detention centres – hopelessness is matched by the endemic illnesses and host of diseases, some borne from malnourishment.
The Panel’s report appears heading in the direction of turning back the boats when the boats will nevertheless come, and in the numbers they have been coming, which is in effect nevertheless only a trickle of humanity and of negligible impact upon the Australian society.
Australia’s nearly ten billion dollars, not five billion, of expenditure on mishandling and maltreating Asylum Seekers can be averted by leaving alone domestic legislation in relation to the Migration Act, by accepting those who come to our shoes in pursuit of Asylum and by processing their applications through community within 60 days. The Australian Detention network should be dismantled, Australia should resettle no less than 30,000 people per year and preferably 50,000 each year and set an example to the rest of the world, and invest monies saved from the dismantling of the Australian Detention Centre network in resourcing and assisting regional camps that already exist and all round just help people and save lives.
People die waiting while Australia pontificates over our standards of living and a selfish economy and puts humanity and what’s right last. The debate should not be skewed by racism and seen for what it is really about – that we are small and selfish population and this is what we are trying to protect, and in do so we are trying to disconnect from humanity and the moral compass.
Gerry Georgatos
PhD Law researcher, Australian Custodial System and Deaths in Custody
Human Rights Alliance spokesperson
0430 657 309
gerry_georgatos@yahoo.com.au
info@humanrightsalliance.org
humanrightsalliance.org
LINKS:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/the-people-smuggler-as-human...
THE moral panic stirred up by the recent Four Corners story about Captain Emad, an alleged people-smuggler, was predictable.
A couple of weeks later, it was boatloads of Tamils floating towards Christmas Island that we were told we had to fear. Sadly, these are just the latest instalments in a national moral tragedy that has been running for two decades with no sign of a happy ending.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3625768.html
The "business model of migrant smuggling" was developed by me and a few colleagues at the Migration Research Unit at University College London during the mid 1990s.
So in some senses it has been gratifying to hear Prime Minister Gillard speak about "smashing the people smugglers' business model" including in her recent interview with CNN — academic research doesn't often make it into prime ministerial speaking points.
What is less gratifying is that the Prime Minister doesn't appear fully to understand the model, and thus her Government's efforts to "smash" it are unlikely to be effective.
http://www.6pr.com.au/blogs/6pr-perth-blog/smugglers-likened-to-wwii-her...
Refugee advocate Ian Rintoul has likened people smugglers to WWII hero Oskar Schindler. Mr Rintoul made the comments on 6PR's Drive program following revelations people smugglers have been granted visas and are running their illegal business in Australia.
http://rran.org/uwa/files/2012/02/people-smuggling-info-sheet-2.pdf
Who are ‘people smugglers’? Some so called ‘people smugglers’ are asylum seekers themselves or relatives of asylum seekers acting from compassion for no financial reward. Others are mpoverished Indonesian fishermen who have lost their livelihood to large scale industrial firms running factory ships which have depleted fish stocks in the area. Some do it for noble motives,
wanting to assist those in need; some are members of criminal syndicates after large profits. All kinds of people might engage in people smuggling for all kinds of reasons.
http://www.indymedia.org.au/2012/06/04/human-rights-alliance-media-relea...
Do not cast a pall of aspersions on everyone who sacrifices much to help people seek Asylum – would parliamentarians want a swathe of aspersions cast upon them all by the Australian people in response for the misdeeds and improprieties of several of their own?
http://indymedia.org.au/2012/07/01/let-us-remember-galang-and-hei-ling-c...
Let us honestly remind ourselves of the 1970s and 1980s in how we treated and resettled our Asylum Seekers, and who really stood up for them however let us not revise the past in some Camelot like myth as is happening by some and by others too young to remember, and by people ignorant of Galang and Hei Ling Chau and other like regional camps.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/wa-minister-terry-red...
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/49655
Australia breaks Convention on the Rights of the Child
http://indymedia.org.au/2012/05/21/cultural-imperialism-jailed-indonesia...
Comments
What is the total global refugee resettlement?
I'm actually trying to make some sense of the statistics I am finding. There is no one database that provides accurate information of refugee settlement across all nations. The previous link I provided is not an indication of our refugee intake, rather they are reflections of the number of people seeking asylum in these countries. This link indicates the numbers of people that have become refugees. The people are not necessarily processed, or accepted into a country, they have simply fled their own country and ended up in a refugee camp somewhere. There are approximately 15 million of these people world wide at the present time.
This link shows Australia's refugee resettlement, our actual providing of visas to refugees, over the past five years. Our number of visas granted has been between 13,000 and 14,000 per year, which is in accord with our present policy. I haven't found a link to the total annual global resettlement of refugees. So I can't state whether Australia is high or low per head of population of actual resettled refugees. If anyone has this information it would be helpful.
What I can say is that Australia takes refugees from several sources. One source is asylum seekers who come to our shores. It is these figures that I previously posted, and they have escalated particularly over the past two years to over 13,000 per year. What this means is that unless Australia refashions its refugee policy, to increase its total intak eof refugees, then no refugees in camps outside of Australia can be resettled in Australia. No families can be reunited, because asylum seekers are considered first.
So people who advocate for asylum seeker rights are disadvantaging those refugees in camps across the third world. Even if Australia increases its intake to 20,000, it is unlikely that those arriving by boat will diminish. If we increased our intake to 50,000, then certainly we could accommodate both asylum seekers arriving by boat and those considered in turn in refugee camps in our region. The question is, is 50,000 sustainable? We would need to know what the total resettlement of refugees is. By doing this, we can understand better what our international obligation ought to be. It could be possible to increase our refugee intake whilst decreasing other forms of migration, to retain the balance in our migration policy. But many people come here to fill labour shortages or for family reunions. Increasing our refugee intake at the expense of other forms of migration would have an impact upon this.
The real question remains, what is the total global refugee resettlement, and what ought to be our resettlement goal based upon best practice, understanding that it is not within our capbilities to resettle 15 million refugees.
Journalist friend challenges my numbers on Germany
A journalist friend in Germany has provided latest numbers and challenges my big picture: "In 2011 there were 45,741 applications, but only around 7,100 (16.4%) were recognized as bona fide refugees. There was an increase in both figures of around 11% compared to 2010. An additional 2,600 persons were not accepted but promised they would not be returned to their countries of origin. I cannot find anything about what happened to the others (around 35,000). But I presume that only the smallest group of these were returned to their countries. Others appealed the refugee rejection, others may have gone to other EU countries…
"In any case: According to UNHCR and in contrast to public opinion Germany is NOT a major refugee country: UNHCR put into relation the number of refugees to 1,000 inhabitants and they come up with Malta on top – with 20.1 ref per 1,000 inh – followed by Cyprus (17.1 / 1000). with Germany not even listed.
"I am surprised of these results myself. I thought that we did take in more refugees."
Refugee communities in Australia
Part 1- The role of refugee communities in commenting on policy
http://www.sbs.com.au/podcasts/Podcasts/radionews/episode/225142/Asylum-...
Part 2- Community opinions on the arrival of asylum seekers by boat.
http://www.sbs.com.au/podcasts/Podcasts/radionews/episode/225150/Asylum-...
Part 3- Responding to criticism that refugee communities are not doing enough to comment on refugee policy.
http://www.sbs.com.au/podcasts/Podcasts/radionews/episode/225146/Asylum-...
Reluctant Rescuers
Tony Kevin's new book is titled Reluctant Rescuers and explores the Australian border protection system's safety record in relation to loss of life at sea and the detention and interception of asylum seeker boats between 1998-2011. The book has powerful endorsements by Frank Brennan, Michael Kirby, Paul Barratt (former Secretary of Defence) and Commodore Sam Bateman. Many of you will recall Tony's award winning book on the sinking of Siev X.
A specific website has been set up for the book. http://reluctantrescuers.com/.
Tony also did an interview on ABC Breakfast Radio with Fran Kelly on Monday. You can listen herehttp://sievx.com/sound_clips/20120625TonyKevin.mp3
The deported sent home to arrest and torture
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/sent-home-to-arrest-torture...
Minister has turned the expert panel into a sham
The Refugee Action Coalition (RAC NSW) has condemned the Minister for Immigration for dismissing calls for asylum seekers to be processed in Indonesia. RAC’s submission to the Expert
Panel on Asylum Seekers stresses the importance that speedy processing in Indonesia be combined with guaranteed resettlement in Australia of those found to be refugees.
“We are dismayed but not surprised that the Minister has already ruled out processing in Indonesia.
The Minister’s announcement has pre-empted the fi ndings of the expert panel. He has turned the expert panel into a sham. Either it is a government set-up or it is set up to fail,” said Ian
Rintoul, spokesperson for the Refugee Action Coalition.
“The Minister’s rejection of processing asylum seekers in Indonesia and resettlement shows just how much the government’s push for off-shore processing is driven by domestic politics, not by concern for asylum seekers.” He said any “regional solution”’ that does not guarantee resettlement in Australia is just a way of outsourcing Australia’s responsibilities to asylum
seekers and turning poorer regional neighbours into dead end dumping grounds.
“Chris Bowen’s fixation on the policies of deterrence will only ensure that the pointless, toxic debate between Labor and the Coalition over off-shore processing will continue.
The Labor government is about to miss another opportunity to implement a humanitarian policy.
“Pakistan has just announced that it intends to repatriate 2.7 million Afghan refugees by December this year. Combine this with the repression of Hazaras in Quetta and you have a push factor far bigger than any deterrence the Minister could manufacture.”
The Refugee Action Coalition (NSW) has called a rally on Sunday August 12, 1.00pm at Sydney Town Hall to protest against off-shore processing before the August sitting of federal arliament.
Meanwhile, refugee groups have rejected the Immigration Minister’s assertion that refugee boat arrivals take the places of refugees in camps as a convenient untruth.
“The Minister is responsible for setting the number of refugees taken from camps each year. It has been 6000 for many years. That number could, and should, be increased,” said Rintoul.
“It is not boat people depriving others in refugee camps; it is the Minister.”
“The Howard government deliberately linked the number of boat arrivals to the special humanitarian program to try and turn refugee and migrant communities against boat arrivals. This cruel measure should have been dropped by Labor when it was elected in 2007, but shamefully
it was kept in place. “No other country in the world links its onshore and offshore refugee programs in this way. Just as Howard’s use of temporary protection visas pushed family members
onto boats, and led to the sinking of the SIEV X, Chris Bowen’s use of this policy is pushing families onto boats.” He noted that Opposition Immigration Minister Scott Morrison says nothing about maintaining the Howard policy. But Chris Bowen is now using the Howard government’s policy to turn community opinion against boat arrivals.
“Even more dangerously, because refugees’ family members are artifi cially excluded from the
humanitarian program, there is no alternative for them but to get into boats. Just as Howard’s use of temporary protection visas led to the refugees’ families drowning on the SIEV X, Chris Bowen policies are pushing refugees’ relatives to get on to boats. Chris Bowen is creating a ‘SIEV X’ effect.” He said that if the Minister was really concerned about the safety of asylum seekers, he would de-link the off-shore refugee program from the special humanitarian program. If he was really concerned about refugees in camps in Africa, he would increase the pitifully small quota of 6,000. “But hypocrisy rules the day.
Truth is also a casualty in the war against refugees. Chris Bowen is more interested in abusing the rights of asylum seekers and promoting off-shore processing and the Malaysia Agreement.”
Mr X
URGENT ACTION NEEDED TO PREVENT TAMIL DEPORTATION
Urgent attempts to initiate legal action are being made this afternoon
(Wednesday) to try to prevent the deportation of a Tamil asylum seeker
to Sri Lanka.
The Tamil man, known in the media as Mr X has already been taken by
Immigration authorities to Melbourne’s Tullamarine airport.
Mr X has been the subject of an appeal to the UN Special Rapporteur on
Torture in September 2011. A request from the Special Rapporteur I
October 2011 has been unanswered by the Australian government.
The Tamil man was taken from the community to the Marybinong Detention
Centre on the 17 July.
“The Department of Immigration has ignored its own regulations by not
giving this man any actual notice of his deportation. They are also
desperately trying to get around a pending High Court judgment that
would allow Mr X further appeal rights.
“The department has ignored that High Court action. He has been
prevented from sending faxes for the last two days. The lack of notice
is a deliberate measure to thwart possible legal action against his
deportation,” said Ian Rintoul, spokesperson for the Refugee Action
Coalition.
“The human rights abuses of the Rajapaksa government are well known.
In June the British High Court prevented the deportation of around 40
Tamil asylum seekers because of the Court’s concerns that forcibly
removed Tamils could face arrest and torture in Sri Lanka.
“We are urging the Minister to urgently intervene to prevent this
man’s removal. The Minister well knows that other Sri Lankans who have
been forcibly sent back o Sri Lanka have been arrested, tortured and
imprisoned.”
Recanting under duress, deportee is not out of danger
TAMIL REFUGEE RECANTS UNDER DURESS – DEPORTEE IS NOT OUT OF DANGER
The Refugee Action Coalition has welcomed the release of Tamil asylum
seeker Dayan Anthony from custody in Sri Lanka, but has rejected
reports that Dayan’s recanting his claim of torture as a product of
duress.
“After 16 hours of questioning without legal representation by the Sri
Lankan CID, comments at Dayan’s press conference cannot be considered
to be freely given. The CID has the power of life or death over the
people they question. It is highly likely that his recantation was a
condition of him being released at all,” said Ian Rintoul,
spokesperson for the Refugee Action Coalition.
“There is too much evidence both of Dayan’s mistreatment and the
reports of torture of other Tamils for the comments at the press
conference to be believable. Human Rights Watch reports that are more
than a dozen cases of asylum seekers tortured after being returned
from Britain.
“Reports of Dayan’s comments such as, ‘Sri Lanka has become the safest
place on the earth after the LTTE was wiped out from the country,’
smack of a script prepared by the CID for its own propaganda purposes.
“We are calling on the Australian government officials to publicly
report what they witnessed at Dayan’s questioning and to explain why
they were not present for the entire interrogation.
“We do not believe that Dayan is out of danger. In other cases,
returned asylum seekers have been subjected to harassment and
imprisonment months after being returned. Indeed, the families of
asylum seekers and refugees are being harassed years after the their
relatives have fled Sri Lanka for Australia.
“We are calling on the Australian government to call a halt to all
forced deportations to Sri Lanka. The concerns of the UN regarding
Dayan and the threat of torture in Sri Lanka need to properly
investigated.
“The stage-managed show of Dayan’s press conference has only added to
doubts that surround the Rajapaksa regime and added to our fears for
the safety of Dayan and other Tamils deported to Sri Lanka. The
Australian government must put an immediate halt to forced removals.”
The real stories
http://www.ahrcentre.org/events?page=1
An age of uncertainty - Australian Human Rights Commission
We are pleased to announce the release of An age of uncertainty, the final report of the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Inquiry into the treatment of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who say that they are children.
The final report detailing the Commission’s findings and recommendations was tabled in Parliament yesterday, Friday 27 July 2012.
A copy of the report is available for download from the Inquiry website at: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/ageassessment/report/.
The inquiry by the AHRC
An age of uncertainty
Inquiry into the treatment of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who say that they are children
July 2012
An age of uncertainty
Download
Complete report PDF pdf (4.54 MB)
Complete report Word word (679 KB)
Contents
Foreword
Glossary of Terms
Executive Summary
Recommendations
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
Chapter 8: Findings and recommendations
Appendix 1: Case studies
Appendix 2: Individuals of concern to the Inquiry
Appendix 3: Submissions
Appendix 4: Hearings and visits
Appendix 5: The use of statistical evidence
Appendix 6: Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Appendix 7: Acknowledgements
Breaches of Convention on the Rights of the Child
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/ageassessment/report/
This report makes disturbing reading. It documents numerous breaches by Australia of both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As a nation that is understandably anxious that the rights of our own children should be respected when they come into contact with the authorities of other countries, it is troubling that between late 2008 and late 2011 Australian authorities apparently gave little weight to the rights of this cohort of young Indonesians.
The events outlined in this report reveal that, in the above period, each of the Australian Federal Police, the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General’s Department engaged in acts and practices that led to contraventions of fundamental rights; not just rights recognised under international human rights law but in some cases rights also recognised at common law, such as the right to a fair trial. It seems likely that some of those acts and practices are best understood in the context of heavy workloads, difficulties of investigation and limited resources. Others, however, seem best explained by insufficient resilience in the face of political and public pressure to ‘take people smuggling seriously’; a pressure which seems to have contributed to a high level of scepticism about statements made by young crew on the boats carrying asylum seekers to Australia that they were under the age of 18 years.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: The Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and if appropriate the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), should be amended to make clear that for the purposes of Part 2, Division 12, Subdivision A of the Migration Act, an individual who claims to be under the age of 18 years must be deemed to be a minor unless the relevant decision-maker is positively satisfied, or in the case of a judicial decision-maker, satisfied on the balance of probabilities after taking into account the matters identified in s 140(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), that the individual is over the age of 18 years.
Recommendation 2: An individual suspected of people smuggling who says that he is a child, and who is not manifestly an adult, should be provided with an independent guardian with responsibility for advocating for the protection of his best interests.
Recommendation 3: No procedure which involves human imaging using radiation should be specified as a prescribed procedure for the purposes of s 3ZQA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), or remain a prescribed procedure for that purpose, without a justification of the procedure being undertaken in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 3.18, 3.61–3.64 and 3.66 of the International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Standard: Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards – Interim Edition (General Safety Requirements: Part 3) or any later edition of these requirements. Such justification should take into account contemporary understanding of the extent to which the procedure is informative of chronological age.
Recommendation 4: The Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and, if appropriate, the Crimes Regulations 1990 (Cth), or alternatively the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), should be amended to ensure that expert evidence which is wholly or substantially based on the analysis of a wrist x-ray is not admissible in a legal proceeding as proof, or as evidence tending to prove, that the subject of the wrist x-ray is over the age of 18 years.
Recommendation 5: Imaging of an individual’s dentition using radiation (dental x-ray) should not be specified for the purposes of s 3ZQA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) as a prescribed procedure for the determination of age
Recommendation 6: Imaging of an individual’s clavicle using radiation (clavicle x-ray) should not be specified for the purposes of s 3ZQA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) as a prescribed procedure for the determination of age.
Recommendation 7: If any forensic procedure is specified as a prescribed procedure for the purpose of age determination within the meaning of s 3ZQA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Part IAA Division 4A consideration should be given to amending the Crimes Act to provide that such a procedure may only be undertaken in the circumstances in which a forensic procedure within the meaning of s 23WA of the Crimes Act may be undertaken with respect to a child.
Recommendation 8: Unless and until recommendation 9 is implemented, the Commissioner of Federal Police should ensure that all Federal Agents are aware of their obligations when acting as an ‘investigating official’ in reliance on s 3ZQC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and should further ensure that protocols or guidelines are put in place to ensure that these obligations are met. Specifically, an investigating official should be aware that the role of any independent adult person is to represent the interests of the person in respect of whom the prescribed procedure is to be carried out and that he or she should be so advised.
Recommendation 9: Where it is necessary for an investigating official within the meaning of s 3ZQB(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), who suspects that a person may have committed a Commonwealth offence, to determine whether a person is, or was at the time of the alleged commission of an offence, under the age of 18 years, the investigating official should seek the consent of the person to participate in an age assessment interview.
Where reasonably possible, the interviewer should speak the language ordinarily spoken by the person whose age is to be assessed and should be familiar with the culture of the place from which the person comes. The interviewer, who ideally should be independent of the Commonwealth, should be instructed that he or she should only make an assessment that the person is over the age of 18 years if positively satisfied that this is the case after allowing for the difficulty of assessing age by interview.
All interviewers should be trained, should follow an established procedure and should record their interviews. Their conclusions and the reasons for their conclusions should be documented.
Recommendation 10: Any individual suspected of people smuggling who says that he is a child and who is not manifestly an adult should be offered access to legal advice prior to participating in any age assessment interview intended to be relied on in a legal proceeding.
Recommendation 11: If a decision is made to investigate or prosecute an individual suspected of people smuggling who does not admit that he was over the age of 18 years at the date of the offence of which he is suspected, immediate efforts should be made to obtain documentary evidence of age from his country of origin.
Recommendation 12: The Attorney-General should set and ensure the implementation of an appropriate time limit between the apprehension of a young person suspected of people smuggling who does not admit to being over the age of 18 years and the bringing of a charge or charges against him. The Attorney-General should further consult with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions concerning procedures put in place by the Director to ensure the expeditious trial of any young person who does not admit to being over the age of 18 years and who is charged with a Commonwealth offence. Should the Attorney-General not be satisfied that appropriate procedures have been put in place by the Director, the Attorney-General should issue guidelines on this topic under s 8 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth).
Recommendation 13: The Commonwealth should only in exceptional circumstances, and after bringing those circumstances to the attention of the decision-maker, oppose bail where a person who claims to be a minor, and is not manifestly an adult, has been charged with people smuggling. Where a person who claims to be a minor, and is not manifestly an adult, has been charged with people smuggling and granted bail, he should be held in appropriate community detention in in the vicinity of his trial court. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’s guidelines for the administration of his residence determination powers should be amended so that such cases can be brought to the Minister’s immediate attention.
Recommendation 14: The Attorney-General should consult with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions concerning procedures put in place by the Director to ensure that the Commonwealth does not adduce expert evidence in legal proceedings where the acceptance by the court of that evidence would be inconsistent with the accused person’s receiving a fair trial. Should the Attorney-General not be satisfied that appropriate procedures have been put in place by the Director, the Attorney-General should seek advice from an appropriately qualified judicial officer or former judicial officer as to the terms of guidelines on this topic that it would be appropriate for her to furnish to the Director under s 8 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth).
Recommendation 15: The Attorney-General’s Department should establish and maintain a process whereby there is regular and frequent review of the continuing need for each Criminal Justice Stay Certificate given by the Attorney-General or his or her delegate. The Attorney-General’s Department should additionally ensure that a Criminal Justice Stay Certificate is cancelled as promptly as compliance with s 162(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) allows when it is no longer required for the purpose for which it was given.
Recommendation 16: If, at any time, the Commonwealth becomes aware of information that indicates that an individual suspected of people smuggling whose age is in doubt may have been trafficked, he should be treated as a victim of crime and provided with appropriate support.
Recommendation 17: The Australian Government should remove Australia’s reservation to article 37(c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Long incarceration before and after being charged
Between 1 September 2008 and 22 November 2011, 180 young Indonesians who said that they were children arrived in Australia, having worked as crew on boats bringing asylum seekers to Australia. These young people were often fishermen from impoverished communities in the south and east of Indonesia. Many of them have spent long periods of time in immigration detention without being charged, or prior to being charged, with an offence. Some have spent long periods of time in adult correctional facilities in Australia after being charged, and in some cases after being convicted, as an adult of a people smuggling offence.
Twelve prisoners said they were children when charged
On 26 and 27 April 2012, two members of the staff of the Australian Human Rights Commission visited Albany Regional Prison and Pardelup Prison Farm for the purposes of this Inquiry. The Commission chose to visit these two facilities because of the concentration of individuals of concern to the Inquiry who were held there. Twelve Indonesians who were detained in these facilities had said that they were children at the time of the offence of which they were charged. The purpose of the visits was to speak with as many as possible of these 12 individuals in order to understand their backgrounds and histories, and to hear first-hand accounts of their experiences since arriving in Australia.
Commonwealth gave all available information on age to the court
5.2 The Office of the CDPP failed to meet its disclosure obligations in cases where age was in doubt
As noted above, the Commonwealth has on a number of occasions asserted that the assessment of the accuracy of evidence, including medical evidence of age, is a matter for the courts. Further, the Commonwealth submits that it has assisted the courts to make determinations of age by placing all available information before the court.
Though x-ray did not show maturity, youngster convicted as adult
excerpt from An age of uncertainty report:
5.2 Some individuals were convicted as adults on the basis of wrist x-ray evidence that was inconclusive
The Commission is aware of at least two cases where the wrist x-ray of a young Indonesian did not show skeletal maturity but he was nonetheless charged and ultimately convicted as an adult.
Victorian Legal Aid recommended the following:
The Victoria Legal Aid submission to the Inquiry notes the importance of listening to the experience of people who say that they are children in the context of child asylum-seekers. The submission states:
Given the importance of age in determining whether young refugees can reunite with their families, and the difficulties in relying on either written records or x-ray data, it will often be appropriate to treat the evidence of a young refugee as the primary source of evidence about their age. Where there is other credible evidence as to age, this will also need to be taken into account. In the absence of such evidence, the young person’s testimony should be treated as sufficient evidence of age, so that such vulnerable child refugees can seek to be reunited with their family in Australia.
17 months passed!
5.2 In many cases there was a long delay before the AFP made enquiries in Indonesia
From the documents before the Commission, it appears that the AFP has not always sought information about age from Indonesia in a timely manner.
As set out above, the talking points prepared for the Australia-Indonesia Consular Consultations on 30 June 2011 indicated that the AFP was taking steps to make age enquiries in Indonesia ‘as early as possible’. Further, as noted above, an element of the ‘improved process’ of assessing age announced on 8 July 2011 was that the AFP would be taking ‘steps as early as possible’ to seek information about age from Indonesia.
Material before the Commission shows that until mid-2011, in a significant number of cases, a substantial amount of time passed between the time a young Indonesian was apprehended and the AFP making its first request to Indonesia for evidence about his age. For example:
• No enquiries were directed to Indonesia about an individual apprehended in December 2009 until April 2011; that is, 17 months later
The problem is the politicians
The problem isn't asylum seekers, people seeking refuge are not a problem, the problem are our politicians, both the prejudiced and cowardly ones
That photo breaks the human heart
Humanity is to be worked for to remain sane
"People smugglers" acquitted by Victorian court
http://www.theage.com.au/national/indon-pair-acquitted-on-peoplesmuggle-...
Two Indonesians have been acquitted of people smuggling in the first case where those who crewed boats that took asylum seekers to Christmas Island faced trial in Victoria.
A jury of seven men and five women found Rustan, 25, and Sore, 42, not guilty of aggravated people smuggling, a charge that carries a mandatory prison term of five years.
Both men, who have been in immigration detention or prison since their boat was intercepted in November 2010, were overcome with emotion after the verdicts.
They were taken from the court to the Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre to await deportation to Indonesia.
Defence lawyers argued that the pair were members of a people smuggling "B-team" who were kept in the dark by those who profited from the venture, and left to care for the 59 passengers and face arrest after members of the "A-team" left the boat after repairing its engine during the journey.
More than 50 trials of Indonesians who worked as crew on boats taking asylum seekers to Australia face trial in Victoria this year. The jury had to satisfy itself beyond reasonable doubt that the pair knew they were helping their passengers come to Australia and that they might not have a lawful right to come to this country.
The stats on children speak
QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE
BUDGET ESTIMATES HEARING: 21-22 MAY 2012
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP PORTFOLIO
(BE12/0364) Program 4.2: Onshore Detention Network
Senator Cash (L & CA 82) asked:
From 2008 to date, how many children have arrived as IMAs by financial year? How
many have been unaccompanied minors? How many of these were subject to an
age determination process? How many were found to be older than 18 years as a
result of that process or other information?
Answer:
Below is a breakdown of the number of IMA minors who have arrived by Financial
Year (including crew).
Financial Year Accompanied
Minors
Unaccompanied
Minors Total
2008/09 37 41 78
2009/10 311 437 748
2010/11 678 470 1148
1 July 2011 to cob 21 May 2012 506 856 1362
TOTAL 1532 1804 3336
Source: DIAC operational data
Since the introduction of the age determination pilot in mid 2010 to 12 June 2012,
759 IMAs have undergone an age determination process.
Of the 759, 350 were found to be older than 18 years of age.
The stats on children speak clear
QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE
BUDGET ESTIMATES HEARING: 21-22 MAY 2012
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP PORTFOLIO
(BE12/0364) Program 4.2: Onshore Detention Network
Senator Cash (L & CA 82) asked:
From 2008 to date, how many children have arrived as IMAs by financial year? How
many have been unaccompanied minors? How many of these were subject to an
age determination process? How many were found to be older than 18 years as a
result of that process or other information?
Answer:
Below is a breakdown of the number of IMA minors who have arrived by Financial
Year (including crew).
Financial Year Accompanied
Minors
Unaccompanied
Minors Total
2008/09 37 41 78
2009/10 311 437 748
2010/11 678 470 1148
1 July 2011 to cob 21 May 2012 506 856 1362
TOTAL 1532 1804 3336
Source: DIAC operational data
Since the introduction of the age determination pilot in mid 2010 to 12 June 2012,
759 IMAs have undergone an age determination process.
Of the 759, 350 were found to be older than 18 years of age.
Deter boats, don't boost processing: Libs
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/deter-boats-dont-boos...
Imagine if a Muslim said this!
THE Jewish community should not be misled by compassion from the Holocaust into supporting Muslim boat people, the owner of The Australian Jewish News has argued in an article condemned by some as hate speech.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/jewish-call-to-curb-compassion-20120808-2...
Newsltd would bay for the blood of all Muslims to decry the vile statements.
The ABC would convene talking heads to decry the statements.
The pollies would make speeches of condemnation from one end of the country to the other and decry all Muslims.
A Jewish leader says these vile hateful things and there is silence.
SILENCE. NOT A WORD.
Millions of rich refugees were able to establish themselves
Millions of rich refugees were able to establish themselves in Australia, probably thanks to the keating government opening the gates to rich refugees. The SKI club stood for Spend Kids Inheritance & the elderly australian members of the SKI club sold their overpriced houses to these rich refugees so that they could go on holidays & retire in fancy retirement villages & the children of the SKI club were left with nothing.
Sickening what many people do to people
it is sickening what many people do to people, it's different centuries in different places and here in oz too different centuries in different minds
good for you gerry, good for you gerry, you and others like you good for you
Ali Jasmin was not age tested by any means!
No age test, no proof of age, however he asserts he is 13, nevertheless he is placed in an adult prison! It's Kafkaesque.
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
COMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Question No. 82
Senator Hanson-Young asked the following question at the hearing on 24 May 2012:
a) Is the CDPP aware of whether DIAC conducted an age assessment on Ali Jasmin prior to him being referred to the AFP for investigation and prosecution?
b) At what point was the CDPP aware of the DIAC age assessment which concluded that Ali Jasmin was 13 or 14 years old at the time he was detained?
The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
a) - b) The CDPP’s understanding is that DIAC did not conduct an age assessment interview with Ali Jasmin prior to the matter being investigated and prosecuted.
Don't Australian laws state that all people are equal?
Does not the laws of australia, un international laws and those of most countries state that all people are equal and therefore they sgould be treated accordingly? I agree with gerry's humanity.
Slave masters want to turn boats away
It will be a generation away before people realise the sins of those past, us, are in part exposed. Like the slave masters, like those who want to turn boats away. Humankind has a long way to go before living up to the 1948 UNDHR
expert panel recommendations coming in
the package is moving towards all boat arrivals being processed
offshore, no right to seek asylum in Australia.
> Brief summary from the live broadcast:
>
> Basically carrot and stick recommendations. Some positive elements, some
> negative.
>
>
> Immediate increase intake from 13000 to 20 000. Increase focused in our
> region.
> Increase to 27 00 within 5 years.
> Work towards a regional mechanism for processing and settlement.
>
>
> Pursue offshore processing immediately on Nauru and PNG. Offshore
> processed people should enjoy the same protections that they would have
> if processed in Australia. Successful applicants should not be resettled
> ahead of people using the `official' regional mechanisms. That is, they
> should not get an `advantage' over people using the `official' channels.
> Vulnerable people in offshore processing to be brought to Australia on a
> temporary basis. So this is pretty much the Howard policy.
>
> Pursue Malaysia Solution but not in present form, more protections and
> accountability needed.
>
> TPVs not recommended.
>
> Special humanitarian program family reunion to be denied to boat
> arrivals. They can still apply through the mainstream family reunion
> migration quota, which should be increased by 4000 per year.
> Yes, to Tow-backs, but only when safe, when legal and diplomatic factors
> are met. Currently not met, but could be in the future.
> So no to tow-back at the moment, but possibly in the future.
>
> More deportations for failed asylum seekers,
>
> More disruption programs
>
> Cost to be in the region of 1 Billion pa for these policies as opposed
> to $5 billion pa for current policies.
so called expert panel's report
162 pages of the report can be found here:
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/2695142/1286137049/name/expert_panel_on_asy...
Media release - Refugee Action Coaltion
CRUEL RETURN TO DISCREDITED HOWARD POLICIES IF HOUSTON POLICIES IMPLEMENTED
The Refugee Action Coalition has strongly condemned the Houston
panel’s recommendations for offshore processing as made public at
their press conference this afternoon.
‘Mr Houston and his colleagues had an opportunity to listen to the
experts, escape the major parties’ persecution of refugees and inject
reason into the asylum seeker debate,’ said Nick Riemer, spokesperson
for the Refugee Action Coalition
‘But the panel has made no recommendation that will improve the
situation for refugees who have no other choice than to get on boats.
All we have seen is a return to the cruelty and inhumanity of the
policies of the past.
‘If the panel’s arrangements are implemented, refugees will suffer and
languish in Nauru, Manus Island, just as they did under the Howard
government. The only people these recommendations will help are the
major parties.
‘The panel has claimed to be motivated by humanitarian
considerations,’ Riemer continued. ‘But all its recommendations are
about outsourcing Australia’s responsibilities to poorer,
less-equipped neighbours. People desperate enough to sacrifice
everything to get on a boat deserve our help. But the panel wants to
shunt them off to places in our region where they have no hope of
living in safety. The only place that can give refugees the security
and support they need is Australia. Refugees should be welcomed into
the community,’ Reimer said.
‘The panel stressed that its aim was to provide incentives for
‘regular pathways’. By giving the green light to the Malaysia
Agreement, the Panel has not provided any credible regular pathway for
refugees to get to Australia. Would Australia really turn away asylum
seekers fleeing the desperate circumstances in Syria?’
“While the Panel recommended increasing Australia’s overall refugee
intake, without guaranteed resettlement to Australia, refugees will
still have no alternative but to resort to boats.
“As the direct arrival of Tamils to Australia shows, war, torture and
persecution are not the kinds of situation that allow regular
pathways. No one with any knowledge of refugee movements thinks that
there is any way to prevent dangerous ocean crossings.
‘The no advantage provisions for boat arrivals are extremely callous.
The panel’s real attitude is revealed by the fact that they haven’t
excluded turning back the boats.’
‘Refugees quite simply have the right to risk their lives at sea if
they think that those journeys are worth that risk. Six hundred people
have died at sea, but thousands have successfully reached Australia.
Tony Kevin’s authoritative figures show that the overwhelming majority
of boat arrivals get here successfully. Howard’s Pacific Solution
didn’t save lives either.
“The only way to save lives at sea is to decriminalize people
smuggling, to open Australian processing centres in the region, and to
massively increase our humanitarian intake without making vulnerable
boat arrivals pay for it.’
‘To add insult to injury, the one positive measure the Panel proposed
– to de-link, the onshore and offshore humanitarian programs
(recommendation 21) has been left for two years to review.”
The politics and judges changing at the same time
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/four-peoplesmuggling-acc...
A COUNTY Court judge said yesterday it was ''highly regrettable'' that two poor and uneducated Indonesians spent more than two years in custody before people-smuggling charges were suddenly dropped yesterday.
Judge Mark Dean also labelled the mandatory five-year jail terms that would have applied, if the trials had proceeded and the men been found guilty, as ''entirely undesirable''.
Charges against another two Indonesians were dropped in a separate courtroom minutes later, bringing to 10 the number of Indonesians who have either been acquitted or discharged before facing trials in Melbourne in the past three weeks. All had served about two years in detention centres and jail.
Greens Response to the Expert Panel on Refugees
Dear Member,
I’m expecting you are keenly interested in The Greens’ response to the
Expert Panel report on Refugees.
You can explore the Panel’s Report for yourself here
http://expertpanelonasylumseekers.dpmc.gov.au/
You can click on Christine Milne and Sarah Hanson-Young’s formal response here.
The worst of Coalition policies past and present will not save refugees’ lives
http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/worst-coa...
The Greens have only been handed the report today, so we might expect
a further Green response in the next few days.
If you have any questions, or responses, please reply and I will pass
them on to the right people.
the facts about distress calls
Tuesday, 14 August 2012 4:25 PM
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/14542131/heat-put-on-respo...
palestinian asylum seekers - future of journalism
http://www.deliberation.info/palestinian-asylum-seeker/
RAC - Sydney
‘Offshore processing is a vicious affront to the principles of protection that should underpin Australia’s treatment of refugees,’ said RAC spokesperson Nick Riemer. ‘Federal Parliament is getting ready to say ‘no’ to desperate people who are escaping persecution, torture and horror. Politicians claim that the plan is about saving lives, but the Houston panel’s proposals are all about making refugees someone else’s responsibility.’
‘Let’s be very clear,’ Riemer continued, ‘this plan won’t save lives. It is nothing short of incredible that the panel has described itself as motivated by humanitarian concerns. Offshore processing is cruelty pure and simple. In sending asylum seekers to Nauru or Manus Island Australia will make itself responsible for the continued persecution of desperate and vulnerable people. How many people’s lives are the major parties prepared to sacrifice?’
‘People have a right to get on a boat if they need to. 600 people have died trying to get here, but thousands have reached safety in Australia. These arrangements won’t stop deaths at sea because people will still get on boats: they have no other choice.’
‘People desperate enough to sacrifice everything to get on a boat deserve our help. The report’s talk of regional processing arrangements is nothing but fantasy. Only Australia has the capacity to give people the support they need. We must not shunt refugees off to places in our region where they have no hope of living in safety.’
‘Reference to ‘regular pathways’ is nothing more than the Howard era’s discredited talk of queues in disguise. There is no ‘regular pathway’ for people fleeing war and persecution in Sri Lanka or the Middle East. Boats are often refugees’ only choice. The government and opposition have been telling us about the importance of compromise. But this is only because they both want to stop the boats. If your aim is to actually save lives and help people, there’s nothing in offshore processing which deserves support. Offshore processing was wrong under Howard and it is still wrong now.’
Fraser says Pacific Solution is racist
Malcolm Fraser on the Pacific Solution:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pms-pacific-solution-is-rac...
Labor throws asylum debate into reverse, capitulating
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/pms-pacific-solut...
Under the panel's ''no advantage'' policy, people processed on Nauru and Manus would wait for a visa to settle in Australia for as long as it would have taken if they had come through regular channels. This could lead to the sort of long waits experienced by asylum seekers under the Pacific Solution, although Mr Houston did not think it would be as long as five years.
Caucus agreed to the Houston package, after Left MPs' objections to indefinite mandatory detention on Nauru and Manus were voted down, as was a move by Left convener Doug Cameron for a delay to give caucus time to consider the report. The government agreed to a proposal for caucus to monitor the detention regime.
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/pms-pacific-solut...
Read and listen to these - international and national media
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/detention-deja-vu-as-victimising-...
'we are
still coming'.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/were-still-coming--boat-peo...
http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/world.report/archive/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2012/08/14/wr-intv-goudkamp-r...
From Jakarta
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/former-inmates-activists-decry-lawye...
An Australia-based lawyer for Indonesian boat crews jailed for people-smuggling offenses has denied allegations by a former diplomat that they were exploiting the country’s mandatory sentencing policy to get rich while in jail.
Lisa Hiariej told the Jakarta Globe on Sunday that the claim by Anthony Sheldon, submitted last month to the Australian government’s expert panel on asylum seekers, was unacceptable.
“To claim that the money earned by Indonesians held in Australian prisons is a big draw for these people is false,” she said.
She added that even though the prisoners did make money for various jobs carried out in prison, the money was quickly spent on phone cards and other items.
Lisa also said that after speaking with those who eventually returned to Indonesia, she was convinced that they were not going back much better off than when they were arrested.
“They typically go home with less than A$100 [$106] and many don’t even have any money left over after buying items that they need while in prison,” she said.
Lisa was responding to a report submitted to the Australian government by Sheldon, a lawyer and former diplomat, in which he said that jailed people smugglers were earning up to A$20 a day in prison.
In his five-page submission to the panel on asylum seekers, Sheldon said “It is clear that the mandatory sentencing provisions for people smuggling are actually providing incentive for Indonesian crew members to come to Australia.”
He said the high prison pay there made them “wealthy beyond comparison upon their return to their villages after their sentence is served.”
“They also receive free dental and medical services,” he added as quoted in The Australian. “Combined with the relative safety of their work in prison compared to the dangerous work at sea, Australian imprisonment is very desirable.”
The allegation, however, has been labeled “nonsense” by the office of Australian Attorney General Nicola Roxon, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.
In an interview with the Globe last month, former juvenile detainees Didi and Putra said they earned around A$20 a week stitching bed linen and towels at the Silverwater Correctional Center in New South Wales.
“The facilities [in prison] were quite good, but it was still a prison and I felt like a chicken in a cage,” Didi said.
Putra also said he regretted the whole experience. The names of both boys, who are still younger than 18, have been changed to protect their identities.
Jono, a former crew member in his 40s who served one and a half years in an Australian prison, echoed the notion that freedom was definitely preferable to detention, no matter how comfortable life behind bars was.
“Even though the facilities there were good, I was always thinking about my family,” Jono told the Globe last month. “I don’t ever want to go there again.”
He also said that the money he earned in prison was all spent on phone cards to call his wife back home as well as necessities such as soap.
Rights activists in Indonesia have also taken issue with Sheldon’s allegation that prison pay was a big draw for impoverished Indonesians.
Ali Akbar, from the Human Rights Working Group, said he had spoken with many minors and adults who had been jailed there for people-smuggling offenses and none of them had ever said they wanted to go to an Australian prison.
“They would rather live in hardship in Indonesia because freedom can’t be bought with any amount of money,” he said.
He said that what the Australian authorities needed to understand was that most of the crew members on board asylum-seeker vessels had been duped by people-smuggling syndicates into taking up the risky job for the promise of a quick and hefty payoff.
People smugglers step up the pace undeterred
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/people-smugglers-...
Palestinians lost at sea
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/palestinian-envoy-raised-al...
Warnings that refugees must not be left to languish offshore
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/refugees-must-not-be-left-t...
Gillard called people smugglers evil
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/in-praise-of-people-smugglers-201...
Refugees are a selfish welfare burden
Do you really think Australian taxpayers love working for nothing while these so called refugees spend all their day in leisure with multiple welfare payments and free housing for the rest of their life? 80% of refugees are on welfare after 5 years! The government knows there is a growing elderly population so they will need more money for pensions in the future. These elderly have worked for at least 40 years usually. Then they let 13,000 people in a year nearly all of whom will never work. Refugees are a selfish welfare burden - they should work! It is the stupid Australian government who is happy to let the poor working class who struggle to make ends meet to pay for lazy, fake refugees who are only here for the welfare benefits. Papa New Guinea and East Timor are closer to where the refugees are than Australia and signatories to the UN convention. Funny how the refugees bypass these countries since they have no welfare benefits.
More info
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/no-clues-in-a-search-for-missing-a...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/grave-fears-for-missing...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/uk-australia-boatpeople-idUKBRE...
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3567967.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/14/australia-boat-67-asylum-see...
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/grave-fears-for-67-asylum-...
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/08/201281445418470592.html
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/palestinian-envoy...
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/palestinian-envoy-raised-al...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/no-clues-in-a-search-for-missi...
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=90177
From Labor for Refugees (NSW)
Dear Friend,
I am writing to you because I know that you share the values of Labor for
Refugees. I know that you are moved by the desire for the decent treatment
of men and women who seek our help in their times of greatest need and
desperation.
These are inherent Labor values. This great party has always been for the
underdog, the unfortunate and the oppressed. There are few groups of people
in our midst more maligned, more marginalised and vilified than those
refugees who dare to seek our protection and sanctuary.
I write because in these dark, dark days, it is vital that the rank and file
of the Labor party persevere for those values. The rank and file is now the
only hope to prevent the decline of our party which will inevitably follow
our capitulation on these principles in Parliament in recent days. Our
Parliamentary brothers and sisters have let us down.
Make no mistake, this legislation is a return to the days of Howard. It
accepts as its premise that people arriving in Australia are queue jumpers;
and it accepts the pathetic contest established by Howard amongst
disadvantaged groups from which only he and his interests could benefit.
The removal of family reunion for those who arrive by boat is the
re-introduction of TPVs in disguise. It attacks innocent men and women by
threats to their family's safety. This is not what our great party is about.
The reopening of Manus Island and Nairu is an abdication of our
responsibility under the Refugee Convention. That Convention has always been
there to stop people from being turned away when they arrive and seek the
protection of civilized nations. It is a principle born directly from the
holocaust. It is a principle worth fighting for again.
You will be given many excuses at the coming branch meetings FECs and SECs,
as members of the parliamentary wing seek to justify their actions. There is
no justification for what they have done.
They will tell you that they are being pragmatic and that our concerns are
just 'purist'. Unfortunately, the professional politicians are the purists.
They are dancing to the tune of the zealots who must have their 'deterrence
model' and ever increasing threats of punishments to asylum seekers. They
cannot and will not compromise or accept the advice of those experts in the
field, whose submissions to the Expert Panel clearly showed that a more
humane, decent and effective policy for reducing the necessity for boat
journeys to Australia is available.
It is not 'purist' of Labor for Refugees to insist on compliance with
international law. It is not 'purist' to seek compromise and a solution
which does not involve the punishment and infliction of harm on those who
have committed no crime.
The compromise which could have discouraged people from taking dangerous
journeys, maintained the integrity of the Convention and done no harm, is
set out in detail in the attached submission to the Houston Panel. I
encourage you to read it before your next branch meeting. A summary is also
attached. All of the submissions made to the Houston Panel can be found at
the Refugee Council of Australia website
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/sub-ep.php.
There was no reason for the political process to not adopt the genuine and
clear compromise that Labor for Refugees together with most other groups of
experts urged on the Houston Panel. The Houston Panel accepted many of our
recommendations, however the pressure to have a 'deterrent' approach and a
punishment model was overwhelming. That pressure only came from the
Department of Immigration and the professional politicians.
In the coming days you will be told that deterrence is the only way to stop
the boats. They will tell you it did work under Howard. This is just wrong.
It ignores the overall reduction in refugee journeys of up to 60% around the
rest of the world (where no Howard policies existed) during exactly the same
period as Howard's policies.
They will tell you this is the only way to save lives by stopping people
making dangerous journeys. Yet they stubbornly refuse to try other
alternatives which those who deal with refugees on a daily basis have
recommended. They just have not tried to do something different- let alone
exhaust all other alternatives.
We all fought hard for Labor to be returned to power in 2007. Howard
epitomised what we stand against- he was defeated by an idea of decency. His
government was mean, tricky and sacrificed the weak and the vulnerable for
the benefit of the prosperous and the strong. The 'Pacific Solution'
epitomised Howard. We simply cannot allow our party to resummon his ghost to
influence even one of our policy areas- let alone this important area.
There was a moment in time where we believed that decency had won over
venality. We must return to that place. We must hold our leaders and
representatives to account. That can only be done through direct
accountability to branch meetings. They have lost their way because they
have lost contact with those of us in the rank and file.
I ask you to remind your members of Parliament why we are members of the
great Australian Labor Party. I ask you to speak out for the underdogs, the
unfortunate and the oppressed - in this case, the refugees. I ask you to do
so at your next branch meeting. Please circulate the summary of our
alternative humane solution at your next meeting. And please have your
branch endorse Labor for Refugees and establish communication with us by
providing your contact details to our Secretary Nizza Siano at
nizzamax@gmail.com You can make a difference and the time to stand up is
now.
Yours in solidarity,
Shane Prince
Convenor, Labor for Refugees (NSW)