Posts Tagged australian government
2011-10-14 Update: AG McClelland responds to 'Compounding the Crimes against David Hicks'
Posted by Metro in Uncategorized on December 28, 2011
Responding belatedly to my letter of 2011/07/21, the Attorney General Robert McClelland (and therefore the Australian government) have made it clear (yet again) that the David Hicks matter and torture allegations is something to make pious platitudes about but otherwise, they have no desire to do anything else.
Here is the letter:
Note the following six points in summary form, made by McClelland’s office:
1) Hicks had the advice of US and Australian counsel.
McClelland forgets what he wrote in the Age in July 2003
…we must not lose sight of how alien these military commissions are to Australians’ expectations of a fair trial, based on our experience of our own criminal justice system. The processes are chalk and cheese.
Exactly, the process and “system”was flawed and somewhat redolent of Stalin’s show Trials in the 1930s where the methods used to extract the confessions included
…repeated beatings, torture, making prisoners stand or go without sleep for days on end, and threats to arrest and execute the prisoners’ families.
As McClelland went on to write:
If tried in Australia, Hicks would be represented by a lawyer of his choice, with a safety net of legal aid. At the military commission, Hicks can retain a US civilian lawyer to assist his US military lawyer, but only if he can afford one.
While on the subject David Hicks legal representatives, what did his Australian lawyer David McLeod think about the matter?
NSW Bar Association publication (Pdf) interview of McLeod*
The military commission process that Hicks was subject to when McLeod was first appointed as his Australian lawyer was, to quote McLeod ‘a complete sham’.
…of course he was tortured. he was detained for over five years without a trial. he was placed in solitary confinement for a prolonged period. he was in a cell for 23 hours a day. he knew that the British detainees and also the other Australian had all been discharged from detention. he went for years without knowing what was going to happen to him. That is torture. It is physical and mental torture.
What was required was not defence lawyers so much as a government who could have – should have – done their duty:
McLeod again:The government has to show some allegiance and support for its citizens when they are in trouble. The British went in to bat for their nationals. we didn’t. we let our national be the last Western man left in that bloody awful place. A new country ought to believe in itself enough to look after its own.
2) Hicks admitted to the Judge that he trained with terrorist organisations.
This was by the account of Lex Lasry, observer at the proceedings, somewhat orchestrated:
Many of the requisite rules and procedures were not in place and the there was a degree of improvisation by the Judge. This led to a situation where there appeared to be a preference for advancing the case and dealing with matters of substance by way of private conferences between the Judge and the parties. These conferences occurred away from public scrutiny, where no rules were necessary. Issues were resolved and then the outcome was presented to the public as something of a fait accompli. This carries obvious implications for transparency and raises questions regarding due process.
Further, it now appears that at the time that matters were being played out in the Military Commission hearing room on Monday 26 March 2007, the pre trial agreement in relation to mr. Hicks’ plea of guilty had already been finalised. Thus, much of what was occurring was contrived and being done for public and media consumption. Even Hicks had a speaking role to play which he discharged at the appropriate time.
On the subject of training with a “terrorist organisation”
At the time that David Hicks was undergoing military training in Kashmir and Afghanistan, LeT was not a designated terrorist organisation and the final charge sheet does not suggest that he was a member of al-Qaeda.
3) The Australian government opposes the use of torture and cruel punishment however two US investigations (requested by the Australian government) namely the Office of the Secretary of Defence and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service – found no mistreatment or abuse of Hicks occurred.
That is not surprising. To use an old expression, it was a bit like getting the mafia to do an investigation on organised crime. The investigating bodies were not independent, to say the least.
…approved interrogation techniques that included “removal of clothing” and “inducing stress by use of detainee’s fears (e.g. dogs).”
Rumsfeld also approved placing detainees in “stress positions,” such as standing for up to 4 hours, though he apparently found this approach unimpressive. Rumsfeld, who works at a stand-up desk, scrawled on the memo, “I stand for 8-10 hours a day. why is standing limited to four hours? D.R.”
One might ask Attorney General McClelland how those “investigations” can be reconciled to the general US policy of abuse and torture as reported (overwhelmingly proven beyond any reasonable doubt even if only on Bush’s admissions of approving waterboarding) to have happened to so many others apart from David Hicks.
4) If David Hicks wants to contest his conviction he should do that in the USA.
This is disingenuous as well as being impractical and likely impossible as the Military Commissions ‘remit’ was in Guantanamo Bay without any appeal rights to US courts that this writer is aware of.
5) An “enquiry” is currently underway with the UN Human Rights Committee ["Communication"] and the Australian government is “responding”.
[Senator Ludwig 29/09/11] The government’s response to that submission was, I think as correctly outlined, due to be lodged with the Human Rights Commission in May. But this has been delayed until the third quarter of 2011. It is, I am advised, expected to be released very shortly.
6) The Australian government does not intend to conduct an inquiry into Hicks’ detention or conviction.
No direct reasons are given, but it is implied that the Communication to the UN is sufficient: it is all round, a huge embarrassment for an Australian government, (client state and lackey some might say) to be asked to investigate the major ally for war crimes/crimes against humanity.
A predictable but highly unsatisfactory response, which avoided all the torture/abuse allegations by saying in essence, “The US investigated itself in this matter and found itself to be exceptionally exonerated.”
No comments on the unjust, unfair military commission process; no comments on duress and coercion and the fact that David Hicks was held for so many years without charge.
Disappointing, mr Attorney General.
Afterthought: No mention at all of the prosecution currently before the Supreme Court of NSW under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
* www.nswbar.asn.au/docs/resources/publications/bn/bn_winter08.pdf
2011-10-14 Update: AG McClelland responds to 'Compounding the Crimes against David Hicks'
PNG crisis eases as Australia hints at military intervention
Posted by Metro in Uncategorized on December 25, 2011
Home » World News » Oceania » Papua new Guinea by Zac Hambides 17 December 2011
One of Papua new Guinea’s contending prime ministers, Peter O’Neill, yesterday strengthened his control of the key state institutions—the army and the police—after the Australian government let it be known that it had plans to intervene militarily, if necessary, to resolve a week-long constitutional stand-off.
At a press conference late yesterday, O’Neill effectively claimed victory, saying: “There is only one government in this country… there is only one government mandated by the people through its parliament.” Nevertheless, the political situation remains uncertain, with his rival, long-time prime minister Michael Somare, refusing to concede defeat. there are continuing concerns in ruling circles that O’Neill’s actions have undermined the legal and constitutional fabric of PNG.
PNG, an Australian colony until 1975, was thrown into turmoil on Monday when the Supreme Court ruled that Somare, who had been hospitalised in Singapore, had been unconstitutionally removed by O’Neill in August. The unfolding events have indicated that O’Neill enjoys backing in Canberra, following his effective repudiation of Somare’s previous “look north” strategy of seeking aid and investment from China and other Asian countries.
In what appears to have been a definite signal, the Australian Financial Review reported on Thursday that a “senior defence source” had indicated that a “contingency plan” existed and would be executed if there were a “breakdown of law and order” or if “requested” by someone in PNG.
Significantly, the article noted that although Washington might provide support, the US “may well consider that Australia should take the lead.” in other words, any Australian intervention would have the backing of the Obama administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier this year publicly accused China of seeking to undermine US interests in PNG, the largest of the South Pacific island states with considerable mineral and energy resources.
Earlier, Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith also referred to a military intervention, but ostensibly ruled it out, stating that the Australian government was closely monitoring the situation and urging a resolution in accordance with PNG’s constitution. Canberra’s preoccupation with the events in PNG is driven by deep concerns about growing Chinese involvement in the South Pacific which Australian capitalism, under US tutelage, has regarded as “its backyard.”
Also on Thursday, Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd stated, via his twitter account, that he had discussed the PNG crisis with Clinton while visiting Washington. No further details were provided of the talks, but in his remarks at a brief joint media conference, Rudd emphasised his commitment to the Obama administration’s aggressive diplomatic push into the Asia-Pacific region to undermine Chinese influence.
Rudd said President Barack Obama’s recent trip to Australia had been “a first-class visit and a reaffirmation of the United States presence in Asia and the Pacific.” He added: “And if I could say this about the Secretary of State, her commitment to our region has been absolutely clear-cut.”
Tensions in the capital, Port Moresby, reached their highest point on Thursday when O’Neill ordered 150 police to occupy government house and other areas where police loyal to Somare were stationed. a shift took place yesterday when Somare’s police officers handed in their weapons and granted control to O’Neill of government house, the government press and key public service offices.
Somare reportedly made a desperate call to the military barracks at 3 a.m. on Friday, ordering the armed forces to stand ready to intervene on his behalf, but the military commanders refused to recognise his authority.
On Thursday, Somare had attempted to cut the utilities to parliament house, where O’Neill currently holds a clear majority, but could not get the relevant authorities to do so. Somare’s only visible support now comes from his 19 appointed ministers, whom the governor general swore in after the Supreme Court ruling.
In a show of popular support, O’Neill held a rally outside parliament on Thursday in which 1,000 people took part, holding banners and shouting slogans against Somare.
These scenes would have caused some anxiety in ruling circles, including in Canberra and Washington. Both O’Neill and Somare generally avoided making any popular appeals for fear of igniting widespread discontent over worsening poverty and social inequality in the country. Just last month over 1,000 young people took part in violent riots in the northern coastal town of Lae.
Pressure for a swift resolution to the crisis was intensified by concerns being expressed in corporate and mining quarters over the impact on business and investment. Port Moresby Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive David Conn told the media: “We are facing all the advances and growth in our economy trashed in the eyes of the world.” He reported that “our members are getting frustrated, some of them angry.”
Over the past two days, O’Neill has been given prominent and mostly favourable coverage in the Australian media. An opinion piece today by Hamish McDonald, the Asia-Pacific editor for the Sydney Morning Herald, concluded that “it would be best if this week’s crisis ends with his [Somare’s] retirement.” Accusing Somare of being part of an elite that siphoned off the benefits of the country’s mining boom, McDonald specifically complained of the huge Chinese-owned Ramu nickel-copper project, which Somare had approved, “pushing aside labour, land-owner and environmental inspectors.”
Since seizing office in August, O’Neill has indicated an orientation toward Australia, and hence the US. two months ago, he brought a delegation of nine cabinet ministers for talks with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and agreed to the resumption of a top-level Australian police and military presence in PNG.
In 2005, Somare effectively forced Prime Minister John Howard’s Australian government to remove 150 Australian Federal Police (AFP) officers from PNG after the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to grant them immunity from prosecution. Somare’s stance ended a program that placed senior Australian officials in control of key military, police and public posts. O’Neill’s agreement to allow AFP and Australian military personnel back into the country therefore had a particular significance.
The Australian political and business establishment has long regarded the South Pacific as its “patch,” to be patrolled with the sponsorship of the United States. Over the past decade, Australian governments have intervened militarily in nearby East Timor and Solomon Islands to install governments more amenable to Australia’s imperialist interests.
In 1997, Australia was behind the removal of PNG Prime Minister Julius Chan after his government sought to sideline Australia by employing private mercenaries in Bougainville, cutting across Canberra’s efforts to strike a deal with the island’s secessionists. Chan was forced to step down after PNG Defence Forces chief Brigadier General Jerry Singirok called for his removal.
Neither O’Neill nor Somare represents the interests of the workers, young people and villagers of PNG. rather the two men are based on competing factions of the country’s tiny ruling elite that has enriched itself from the mining boom and is now caught up in the intensifying rivalry between the US and China for influence throughout the Indo-Pacific region.
PNG crisis eases as Australia hints at military intervention
Australian Mortgage – How To Borrow To Buy Real Estate In Australia
Posted by Metro in Uncategorized on December 24, 2011
Are you planning to buy an investment property in Australia? Many foreign investors are enticed by Australia’s stable property market, reliable growth and availability of credit. so how can you too take advantage of the Australian property market?
1. The basics of investing in Australia
As a foreign investor you will be required to obtain Australian government approval through the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) when you buy. this is a simple process and can be completed through your Australian solicitor or conveyancer. please note that you will likely be restricted to buying a new property or to buying land and building a house.
Buying existing property is generally not allowed as the government believes it may create asset price bubbles if too much foreign money competes with Australian home buyers. If you are an Australian citizen living overseas then FIRB approval is not required and you can buy any type of property.
You will need to get a conveyancer or solicitor to work for you to handle the legal side of the purchase. Find one that is in the same state as the property that you a buying. Conveyancers hold licences for their state only, so finding one from outside the area will not help you.
You will also need a mortgage broker who specializes in helping foreigners to invest. this article is designed to help you to find a good broker and get approval.
2. Where to buy in Australia?
Most foreign investors buy in the four main capital cities; Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. although Canberra is technically the capital for the nation many investors prefer to avoid it as it is inland. The relative abundance of land around Canberra may result in prices not rising as strongly as in the coastal cities where land is short.
If you require FIRB approval and are restricted to buying a new building then you may want to consider one of the tourist towns such as Cairns, Townsville, The Gold Coast, The Sunshine Coast or Byrons Bay. These areas are all growing rapidly and there is no shortage of new developments to invest in.
You may want to consider buying in these tourism based areas when the Australian dollar is very high. In particular the Gold Coast and Cairns tend to suffer when the dollar is high because fewer tourists come from overseas. as a result it can be possible to pick up a bargain. some investors transfer their funds to Australia when the dollar is low and then wait for tourism to go through a quiet period before buying in Cairns.
3. how much can you borrow?
Foreign citizens investing in Australia are generally allowed to borrow 80% of the value of the property. For mortgage loans over $1,000,000 this percentage may be reduced to 70% or even 60% for very large loans.
Australian citizens living overseas can borrow up to 90% or in some cases 95% of the value of the property that they are buying.
4. how do you prove your income?
Whilst in the UK and USA it is common for lenders to rely heavily on a borrowers credit score, in Australia lenders prefer to ask for documents to prove your credit worthiness. Lenders will ask for a range of documents such as payslips, tax notices, letters from your employer or from your accountant if you are self employed.
Some countries do not have much paperwork that can be provided, or the tax returns are in a different language other than english. In these cases the banks can consider a low doc loan where you sign a declaration confirming your income and the lender takes your word for it. although this is considered a sub-prime style of loan in other countries, in Australia this is quite a common way for people to borrow and if you are borrowing 60% of the property value or less it actually has the same discounted interest rates as well
5. What are the interest rates?
Foreigners applying for a mortgage in Australia do not pay a higher interest rate than residents of Australia. In fact you can apply for the same professional discounts that Australians can get Most people prefer to choose a variable rate for their Australian loan (similar to an Adjustable Rate Mortgage in the USA) as fixed rates are usually for short terms and are not competitive. almost all lenders offer fixed rates of up to 5 years, however longer terms from 10 years to 15 years are rarely offered and competition is low.
6. does your credit score matter?
Your overseas credit score or credit history cannot be accessed by Australian lenders. The banks will search your name in the Australian credit database, Veda Advantage, however they will not penalise you for not having borrowed in Australia before. you will only be penalised if you have defaulted on a loan or credit contract in Australia before. you may be penalised if you apply with too many lenders, the number of enquiries listed on your credit file can damage your Australian credit score.
The banks prefer to look at your asset & liability position, income, debt service ratio and Loan to Value Ratio (LVR).
7. Finding a good mortgage broker
There are two or three mortgage broking companies that specialize in helping foreign investors and Australian expatriates to apply for an mortgage in Australia. The lending policy for foreigner is complex and it is essential that you get the right advice. Most mortgage brokers in Australia do not charge for their services, they are paid by the banks for doing the work that would otherwise be completed by a bank lending officer.
Australian Mortgage – How To Borrow To Buy Real Estate In Australia
ACTU Destroys Credibility Ahead Of Fiji Visit
Posted by Metro in Uncategorized on December 22, 2011
Wednesday, 7 December 2011, 1:06 pm Press Release: Fiji Government
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice,Anti-Corruption, Public Enterprises, Communications, CivilAviation, Tourism, Industry and Trade
MrAiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum
Fijian Attorney-General AiyazSayed-Khaiyum released the following statementtoday:
“The Australian Council of TradeUnions’ call to place Fiji on the blacklist of the LaborParty platform, alongside Zimbabwe and Burma, is absurd anda gross abuse of unionist influence over Australian foreignpolicy—especially coming on the heels of a report by the Australian government’sown think tank saying how such isolation tactics againstFiji have only hindered Australia.
“TheBainimarama Government is particularly disappointed havingreceived correspondence that ACTU plans to visit Fiji on afact finding mission. We assumed the visit would provide theorganization with an opportunity to see first-hand ourcountry and to meet with some of the more than 70 affiliatedunions with tens of thousands of members who operate freelythroughout Fiji—despite the ACTU’s erroneous claimsotherwise.
“Yet the ACTU has destroyed any senseof credibility by moving to conduct its fact-finding missionafter declaring our free and open country akin to nationstorn apart by violent atrocity. this is not only an affrontto Fijians, it devalues the rightful plight of strickenZimbabweans and Burmese.
“While we welcome anycredible fact finding mission, as we have nothing to hide,in no way can we now believe that the ACTU will conduct avisit with objectivity and fairness. they have already madeup their mind—wilfully ignoring the Bainimarama Government’s hardwork:
- • to outlawinstitutionalized racism and other discriminatorypractices;• to codify equal rights for women;• to provide open Internet access for all;• to eliminate or cut taxes for 99 percent oftaxpayers, putting money back in the hands of Fijians;and• to enact extensive reforms on our path tothe first elections in Fiji’s history that will haveuniversal suffrage—one person, one vote, one value.
“Ultimately, we wonder upon what evidence theACTU has been using to form its outrageous conclusions—orif it is simply asserting its patronising agenda based onthe biased claims of a few selfish people, while putting atrisk the livelihoods of hardworking Fijians.”
**********
ENDS
Australia breaks Convention on the Rights of the Child
Posted by Metro in Uncategorized on December 21, 2011
Saturday, December 3, 2011 
It is now common knowledge that Australian adult prisons are incarcerating children as young as 13. The major obstacle for human rights advocates struggling to free these children from our adult prisons is the Australian government and the horrific prejudices and stereotypes they have shoved down Australians’ throats.
Many of the children have now been freed, some brutally traumatised, one sexually abused, all of them losing some of their youth to an unwarranted prison experience. The struggle for their freedom and for the change of Australian laws and and their implementation has now garnered the support of a swathe of lawyers (who are working pro bono for the rights of these children), the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Lawyers Alliance, UNICEF and two Greens Senators.
On November 25 the Senate’s Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs called for submissions into the Crimes Amendment (Fairness for Minors) bill 2011 introduced by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. Submissions close on January 31.
The bill seeks to define timeframes and set up evidentiary procedures for the age determination of “non-citizens accused of people smuggling offences under the Migration Act 1958, and who may have been a child (under 18) at the time of allegedly committing the offences.”
Prime Minister Julia Gillard and foreign minister Kevin Rudd were very concerned about the rights of a 14-year-old Australian child who was arrested by entrapment for possession of marijuana in Bali. However, neither demonstrated the moral leadership required to support the rights of 100 Indonesian children who, for far too long, have languished, either sentenced or on remand, in Australian adult prisons.
The child held in Bali is not in an Indonesian adult prison, was in custody within the appropriate jurisdiction and has now been convicted to a two-month sentence as a juvenile.
This Australian child will be spending Christmas with his family in Australia, while scores of impoverished Indonesian children will languish in the cold dank cells and concrete confines of Australian adult prisons on that very same day.
I contacted the Rudd’s office and he promised he would assist — he delivered less than nothing.
Early last year, during a visit to Hakea Prison (invited by a prison chaplain), I unexpectedly met 30 Indonesian fisher-people who had been sentenced for fishing in excised waters. I was stunned by how young some of them appeared and started to ask questions.
In January, I visited the Perth Airport Immigration Detention Centre with refugee advocate Victoria Martin-Iverson. we met an Indonesian youth who told us he had been a cook on a boat assisting the safe passage of asylum seekers to our shores. While visiting Hakea Prison in February, I was stunned to learn that this youth had been arrested and charged as a people smuggler and remanded to Hakea. I thought it couldn’t be right — Hakea is an adult prison.
Every Australian authority I contacted shut up shop and passed the buck. The media were reluctant to get involved: the producers of one major news program told me: “We can’t do a story on these kids, they’re people smugglers and Australians see people smugglers as evil — it’ll affect our ratings.”
Legal representation for these youths, provided by under-resourced Legal Aid providers, has not always been adequate.
However, more lawyers working pro bono are better representing accused people smugglers. Terry Fisher, representing at this time 22 accused people smugglers, David Svoboda, Mark Plunkett, Edwina Lloyd and several others have ensured the liberty of the children they represented.
What these lawyers have done, including travelling to Indonesia to secure court-admissible evidence to displace the presumption of evidence of age from the discredited wrist bone x-ray, has exposed the failings of our intertwined criminal justice and political systems.
No politicians have demonstrated the political leadership required. However, there has been more media exposure. former chief-of-staff of the Age Lindsay Murdoch has since July written several articles, syndicated across the country. The West Australian’s senior reporter Steve Pennells visited Indonesia to find the mother of one of the children in our adult prisons, and this finished on the front page.
Since then there have been several stories on the plight of these children and the discredited wrist bone scan which the Australian Federal Police (AFP) has been using for age assessment.
On July 20, I asked Gillard about the Indonesian children in adult prisons, 70 having been confirmed at the time by the AFP as “age-disputes”, and asked her to expedite their release into an appropriate jurisdiction and to implement appropriate age-determination protocols, not the discredited wrist bone x-rays. She froze, as if there was another scandal-in-waiting.
Despite the government promising it would do more, all it has done is add a dental scan to the wrist bone x-ray — neither is accurate in terms of assessing age. Why not work with the relevant authorities in Indonesia or with the Consulates? Of these children, 35 have been released so far, the December 1 UAE National reported.
The mantra of “breaking the people smugglers’ business model” has caused much damage to public views. Is assisting in the passage of an asylum seeker immoral and criminal?
There are many asylum seekers who cannot find safe passage from persecution and oppression without the assistance of others. I do not question that there may be some who have profiteered in assisting asylum seekers. However, is this a crime?
Migration agents get paid for their services. Who doesn’t? Let us remind ourselves that much of what is paid to so-called people smugglers is also spent on ensuring their safe passage.
If Gillard and immigration minister Chris Bowen want to break what they perceive as the people smugglers’ business model they should listen to 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,” he wrote.
“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?”
Australia’s misrepresentation of those who assist asylum seekers in their safe passage and their labelling as people smugglers has now caught up youths and children who were no more than cooks and deckhands on the boats of those lawfully seeking asylum on our shores.
We should also not forget the fisher-people convicted for the miniscule crime for fishing in excised waters to feed their families. Some of them are also children.
Currently in the Victorian courts, lawyers are arguing that as asylum seekers have a legal right to come to Australia, people have a legal right to assist them. Indeed, paragraphs 232 and 233 of the Migration Act support this argument.
The incarceration of Indonesian youths and children in Australian adult prisons is a human rights abuse beyond comprehension.
I believe there are still up to 100 children languishing, many who fearfully may have withdrawn their “age dispute”. A young Indonesian prisoner called me on October 28 to say he is 16 years old, however does not want any more “authority” in his life. many never raised their age as an issue, or who settled on an inaccurate date of birth, either because of language barriers or a fear of authority.
Then there are those children who languish in immigration detention. several young people on remand in our adult prisons have told me: “I am scared in prison but prison is better than Christmas Island and Darwin [immigration detention centres] where we are treated and caged like animals, because here in prison we are treated better by the guards and there is more to do, like courses and learning, but here we have to be careful to stay away from some of the bad criminals.”
Tags:
