Posts Tagged asylum seekers
Boat crews facing legal ‘black hole’
Posted by Metro in Uncategorized on March 13, 2012
Australia is breaching international human rights law by detaining poor Indonesian fishermen for an average of 161 days – 20 times the maximum for suspected terrorists – before they are charged with people smuggling offences.
The Australian Federal Police has revealed that the average is more than 70 days higher than its ”benchmark” for charging people who are detained after crewing vessels carrying asylum seekers.
The AFP’s deputy commissioner, operations, Andrew Colvin, told a Senate committee last week that the average was spread over four years and that the longest anyone currently awaiting being charged has been detained is 145 days.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Rachel Ball, the policy director of the Human Rights Law Centre, said yesterday that those who had been detained included children as young as 12, who were often tricked into working as crew of boats carrying asylum seekers.
”This is the kind of draconian practice you might expect to find in Zimbabwe or Burma,” Ms Ball told The Age. ”Detaining people without charge for months on end has no place in a modern democracy like Australia.”
Under international law, a person may be detained prior to charge for 48 hours, she said, though Australian counter-terror laws allowed suspected terrorists to be held for a maximum of eight days before charges are laid.
Ms Ball said the Indonesians found themselves in a kind of ”procedural black hole”, where they were placed in immigration detention because they did not have a visa, but had no access to legal aid until charges were laid or the assistance afforded to those seeking asylum.
The Law Centre has urged that the Indonesians should have access to legal aid from the outset, their cases should be subject to judicial review and a cap should be placed on the time they are detained before charges are laid or they are allowed to go home.
Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who has introduced legislation to end mandatory five-year jail terms for Indonesian crew members, said she was alarmed that the detention time was almost twice the AFP benchmark.
”We’re also very concerned that the AFP has confirmed there are young people who claim to be minors who are being kept in adult prisons because their ages are in dispute,” she said.
”Unless the government can confirm they’re an adult, no child should ever be in an adult prison.”
In response to questions from Senator Hanson-Young, Mr Colvin said the period in detention for those awaiting charges was ”impacted by a range of things over Christmas” when the courts were closed. ”But I reiterate: our benchmark is 90 days – that is what we aim for – and 161 is the current average, though, spread over those four years,” he said.
Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU
Boat crews facing legal ‘black hole’
Lawyers angry at delays in charging asylum crews
Posted by Metro in Uncategorized on March 13, 2012
Lawyers and human rights advocates have reacted angrily to an admission by Federal Police that alleged people smugglers are being detained without charge for an average of more than five months.
Every time a boat of asylum seekers arrives in Australian waters the vessel’s crew is also detained.
There have been legal disputes over how many of the alleged smugglers are only children and criticism of severe mandatory sentences imposed upon them.
The Government was also recently criticised for passing retrospective legislation in the middle of a court case to ensure a challenge to the system was not successful.
But until recently nobody knew how long the men were being locked up before they were charged.
The details only emerged during a Senate committee hearing last week.
In answer to a question on notice from the Greens, Australian Federal Police officer Andrew Colvin revealed the men were held without charge for an average of 161 days.
“In answer to Senator Hanson-Young’s question about the average time spent in detention prior to charge for alleged crew of people smuggling ventures, the average is 161 days,” he said.
“I will say that that is an average since the end of 2008 when we saw the arrival of the current wave of boats.
“The AFP’s benchmark is 90 days.”
The admission has enraged human rights advocates, many of whom thought it bad enough that terrorism suspects could be detained without charge for only eight days.
Human Rights Law Centre spokeswoman Rachel Ball described the situation as “something you might expect to see in Burma or Zimbabwe”.
“Periods of months and months of pre-charge detention is just a practice that has no place in a modern democracy like Australia,” she said.
“These people have fallen into a legal and administrative black hole.
“To put this in perspective, people suspected of terrorism can be held under Australian law for a maximum of eight days before they’re charged. and these people, who are really bit players, are being detained for an average of 161 days before charge.”
Attorney General Nicola Roxon was not available for an interview.
But a spokesman issued a statement which said comparing terrorism suspects to alleged people smugglers was wrong because terrorism suspects are the subjects of lengthy investigations before arrest.
Boat crews, the spokesman said, often arrive with few identity papers and do not speak English well.
They also said legal aid is available as early as practically possible.
Victoria Legal Aid represents some of the hundreds of Indonesian nationals who have been charged with people smuggling, and lawyer Gavin Green has been involved with their cases.
“One of the basic protections of our criminal justice system is that people are charged without delay,” he said.
“In this case people are not being charged, and the delay is inordinate.
“If you compare this to the case of a person apprehended at an airport with drugs, they are charged immediately. The case might be strong against that person, similarly the case might be strong against an accused people smuggler.
“They should similarly be charged quickly.”
Refugee detention under fire over ‘gift packs’
Posted by Metro in Uncategorized on March 5, 2012
The Government and refugee support groups have been forced to defend community detention as Amnesty International releases a report condemning detention centres.
EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: Amnesty International has revealed the poor mental health of hundreds of asylum seekers held in Australia’s detention centres. the report was released as one newspaper claimed that refugee families living in the community receive too much assistance from the Government. So-called “gift packs” worth $10,000 were criticised as extravagant.but refugee advocates and the Government say it’s a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Amy Bainbridge reports.AMY BAINBRIDGE, REPORTER: This is the house four Iranian men have called home for several weeks. It’s clean and basic and the men stay here as they wait for their refugee claims to be processed. the Immigration Department asked the ABC not to identify the men because it could put their families and friends at risk in Iran. Speaking through an interpreter, this man tells us he’s been in community detention for almost two months after two years in detention centres. he says from one aspect, it is good being in the community, but in another aspect it is very tiresome. This man tells us he has psychological problems and has had trouble sleeping. the only thing that keeps his sanity is being able to go to the gym, but the local gym is so expensive, he only eats one meal a day so he can pay the entry fee.another man didn’t want to be interviewed, but tells us it’s a relief to be able to cook his own food again. the headlines in today’s Daily Telegraph have again raised the political issue of refugees and their treatment in Australia. TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: the message is going out loud and clear to the people smugglers and their clients and potential customers, the red carpet is being rolled out, there is a welcome mat waiting for you here in Australia and that’s the last message that the Federal Government should be sending.CHRIS BOWEN, IMMIGRATION MINISTER: Nobody gets given these things, these are not the property of the asylum seeker, this is the property of combined the Red Cross and the Government, which has been provided to process asylum seekers. Now when they leave the house, they leave these goods behind for the use of the next family.AMY BAINBRIDGE: Refugee advocacy groups say the newspaper article grossly misrepresents the situation, and community detention is a cheaper alternative to regular detention. DR MARYANNE LOUGHRY, JESUIT REFUGEE SERVICE AUSTRALIA: the biggest problem with our detention centres is their remoteness, and so the remoteness puts so much extra costs on staffing, on getting resources up there, whereas this time they’re able to access their resources, lawyers in the community, and a whole lot of costs are reduced by that. plus they live an ordinary simple life so that when they are released they don’t have unreal expectations of dependency.AMY BAINBRIDGE: with detention centres near capacity, Amnesty International is calling on the Government to find an alternative to detaining asylum seekers for years. It has visited detention on Christmas Island and in Darwin this week and says they are prison-like, and many detainees are depressed. DR GRAHAM THOM, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: the longer people are in detention, the more and more they are taking sleeping pills and other forms of medication.AMY BAINBRIDGE: the Jesuit Refugee Service Australia says community detention is a good alternative. the men living here hope they’ll be able to find a home of their own soon. Amy Bainbridge, Lateline.
Do you have a comment or a story idea? get in touch with the Lateline team by clicking here.
Abbott heading for a clash
Posted by Metro in Uncategorized on February 13, 2012
Young men and women join the Royal Australian Navy for a variety of reasons: to fight for their country against its enemies, to learn a trade, to see the world, in the hope of adventure, or even to experience what Winston Churchill described as the tradition of “rum, sodomy and the lash.”
But it is a safe bet that none of them enlist in the hope of being ordered to turn leaky Indonesian fishing boats full of the wretched of the Earth back across the seas they have already braved rather than conduct them the much shorter distance to Australian territory.
quite apart from the obvious dangers such a course poses for both the hapless asylum seekers and the navy personnel who may well be called upon to risk their lives if the desperate boat people decide to sabotage their vessels rather than attempt the return journey, there will always be a feeling that this is not what they signed up for. The defence of Australia was never – at least until now – supposed to involve using violence against those who not only pose no threat, but are actually pleading for help.
and by doing so they would also be breaking the oldest and most venerable law of the sea: the first duty of sailors is to rescue those in danger, irrespective of whether they be friend or foe. to refuse to do so – in fact to send them into deeper peril – would be a violation of the ultimate moral code, as well as being a clear breach of international law.
so it is hardly surprising that the navy is less than enthusiastic about Tony Abbott's latest plan to end what he describes (hysterically) as “the crisis in Australia's border protection.” The central plank is for the navy to turn back all – not some, but all – craft bearing asylum seekers to Indonesia. Given that the Indonesians have stated bluntly that they are happy to take back their own crew members but they regard the asylum seekers as Australia's responsibility, this will presumably leave the hapless victims to drift until they founder.
Since they are unlikely to accept that outcome, the Australians will be faced with a choice: continue to repel them in accordance with Abbott's policy, risking sabotage, mayhem and the inevitable loss of life, or do what they have in the past-escort the boats to Christmas Island, arrest the crew and deliver the asylum seekers for detention and eventual processing, knowing that about nine out of 10 of them will be found to be genuine refugees and therefore entitled to protection under international law.
Abbott says that he would expect the navy to obey orders – the boats are to be turned back, no ifs and no buts. Sailors who refused to co-operate would presumably lay themselves open to a charge of mutiny against the Australian government, which might be better than being charged with breaking international law and possible crimes against humanity, for which, as we have known since Nuremberg, “I was only obeying orders” is no defence.
The policy has been condemned by naval personnel, lawyers and foreign affairs experts who have warned that apart from its dangers and illegalities, it would irrevocably sour Australia's always delicate relations with Indonesia, our nearest neighbour and our most important diplomatic link to ASEAN and through it to the whole of Asia.
Abbott's immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, has defended it, but without any great enthusiasm. Abbott's deputy and shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Julie Bishop, and his shadow Defence Minister, David Johnson, have maintained deafening silence. The policy has been dismissed by former naval chief Chris Barrie as both illegal and unworkable, and denounced by others as silly, callous and possibly homicidal.
so how did Abbott come up with it and why does he persist with it? well, simply to show he's hairy chested; he has balls while Julia Gillard self-evidently does not.
Note the timing; when Abbott announced his brainwave, Morrison was supposedly in discussion with Gillard's Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, to try and find a compromise which would allow off-shore processing of asylum seekers – the policy supposedly espoused by both sides – to be implemented.
Bowen was indeed prepared to compromise; he offered to reopen Nauru, in spite of advice that it would not act as an effective deterrent to the people smugglers a second time around, and of what (he revealed later) were exorbitant cost estimates for refurbishing and running the place. he even suggested resurrecting the cruel and inhumane device of Temporary Protection Visas, the form of psychological torture whereby even those found to be genuine refugees were prevented from enjoying the rights of normal citizens for an indefinite period. Bowen put TPVs on the table even though they had proved to have disastrous unexpected consequences: those unable to seek reunion with their families, or even overseas visiting rights, persuaded wives and children to follow them through the asylum seeker route, adding greatly to the numbers risking their lives on the voyage.
Bowen was prepared to take on policies which he knew to be at best pointless and at worst positively dangerous in the cause of bipartisanship. Morrison, however, was prepared to concede nothing: Abbott's way or no way. he knew Bowen could not and would not surrender totally, and was therefore content to let the impasse continue and blame the government. But since that made him look both stubborn and cynical, and reinforced the general feeling that the opposition was so obsessed by the thought of power that it had forgotten policy altogether, Abbott decided that he had to do produce something positive – anything to prove that he was not really the black hole of negativity the government was successfully portraying.
so ‘Stop the Boats!' morphed into ‘Turn Back the Boats!' with no serious thought of either context or consequences. Illegal, unworkable, silly, callous and possibly homicidal; also thoroughly nasty at every level. But not negative – no one can accuse him of that. Action Man is back. Or should that be Stupefaction Man?
Asylum-seeker policy at its worst
Posted by Metro in Uncategorized on January 7, 2012
WHEN some future historian tells the story of Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers since the introduction of mandatory detention in 1992, one of the saddest and cruellest elements of that story will be the plight of Ali Abbas. Ali, who turned 18 on December 31, was accepted as a genuine refugee by the Immigration Department last April. Yet he has also received a negative security assessment from ASIO, so he is denied the resettlement that, as a refugee, he is entitled to receive. As a refugee, he cannot forcibly be repatriated to his country of origin, Kuwait. Yet as a declared security risk, he must remain in detention or be deported. It is Catch-22 in its most perverse form.
ASIO has not explained its negative assessment of Ali, presumably for security reasons. Reasonable people will wonder, therefore, just what someone so young could have done to be deemed a threat. Ali was only 13 when he and his family fled from Kuwait to Indonesia. he was 16 when he arrived at Christmas Island by boat, travelling unaccompanied. he has lived in detention for more than a year, during which time his mental health has deteriorated and he has repeatedly attempted suicide.
According to Professor Jon Jureidini, professor of psychiatry at the University of Adelaide, who conducted two assessments of Ali by video link, his ”significant psychological impairment” is ”a reaction to being in immigration detention exacerbated by what he must experience as the cruelty of having refugee status but being denied a visa”. a Federal Court judge who is hearing a case challenging the long-term detention of recognised refugees has urged the Immigration Department to move Ali out of the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation Centre to a ”supportive residential or family-based environment”.
Advertisement: story continues below
It is not only Ali’s youthfulness that makes the ASIO assessment a puzzle. Ali was officially informed of the assessment on December 15, the day his lawyers began the Federal Court challenge and when he had not yet turned 18. Yet on December 16 ASIO told a parliamentary inquiry that ”as of 22 November” it had not refused security clearance to a minor. did ASIO’s evidence simply rely on outdated information? or was the agency trying to mislead?
Ali and his lawyers deserve to know answers to these questions, and so do the Australian people, in whose name both ASIO and the Immigration Department act. The adverse security assessment strains credulity, and Ali’s continued detention shames the nation.
