Boat Discussion | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Boat Discussion

New law will increase violence against asylum seekers: former judge
A new law giving security guards in detention centres power to cause grievous bodily harm if they "reasonably believe" it is necessary to protect life or prevent injury is likely to encourage abuse of and violence against asylum seekers in detention, a Senate committee has been told.

Former judge of the Victorian Court of Appeal Stephen Charles QC said the law allowed security guards to use lethal force "with impunity" because it would be "almost impossible" for them to face prosecution in the courts.

"These amendments will authorise detention centre guards to beat asylum seekers to death if they reasonably believe it is necessary to do so to save either themselves or another person from serious harm," he said.

Mr Charles cited a legal opinion that the police officer who shot a black American eight times in the back was likely to escape a murder conviction because of the way the "reasonable belief" test has been applied in the United States.

His concerns were amplified by several witnesses who appeared before a Senate committee in Sydney on Tuesday, including the president of the Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs.

"I think it is terrible legislation," Mr Charles told Fairfax Media after appearing before the committee. "The guards at present are very inadequately trained and they are talking about giving them minimal training and then making it impossible to sue them.

"It means they will be vastly less trained than prison guards or federal or state police, yet they are authorised to use lethal force with impunity because it's almost impossible to sue them."

The absence of any effective way for detainees to take legal action against security guards who used excessive force would encourage abuse and attacks on detainees, he said.

Representatives of human rights, refugee and law bodies told Senate's legal and constitutional committee the government should either scrap or comprehensively amend the so-called "good order" legislation.

Greens senator, Sarah Hanson-Young, said her party would be opposing the legislation in the Senate and urging cross-benchers to do the same.

"With the high levels of secrecy in detention centres, giving guards unchecked powers to use force is a recipe for further cover ups of abuse and misconduct" she said

The government maintains the legislation, called Maintaining Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities, is necessary because of the increasing presence of "high risk detainees" such as members of outlaw bikie gangs, which is seen as a threat to the security of centres.

But critics say it leaves the overwhelming majority of detainees, who have no criminals records, vulnerable to excessive force by guards.

The legislation covers immigration detention centres on the mainland and Christmas Island, but not those on Nauru or Manus Island.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has told Parliament that detention centre staff now rely on common-law powers, as conferred on ordinary citizens, to exercise reasonable force when it is necessary to protect themselves and others from harm or threat of harm.

"Clearly, using reasonable force to manage issues of physical safety, good order, peace and security in an immigration detention facility is a matter for Parliament to decide, not the common law," he said.

Mr Dutton said that, provided reasonable force was exercised in good faith, the bill would bar court proceedings against the Commonwealth, including an authorised officer.

Several witnesses told the hearing the legislation failed to provide the clarity sought by organisations including the security contractor Serco.

Professor Triggs said: "It's clarity they asked for. It's clarity they haven't got in this bill."

Professor Triggs said limits on the use of force should be based on objective criteria of necessity and reasonableness and contained in the legislation. "If private contractors use excessive force, both the contractors and the Commonwealth should be legally accountable."

In its submission, the Law Council of Australia said the bill risked exacerbating existing tensions and may disproportionately impact on children and other asylum seekers who were at risk. The hearing was told 115 children were being held in mainland detention centres.

The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre also opposed the legislation and called on the government to address "the real problems" in detention centres, including poor living conditions, the lack of information given to people about their cases and the arbitrary and indefinite nature of detention.

It said broadening the coercive powers of security guards was unnecessary and dangerous.

Appearing for the department, the deputy CEO of border operations, Michael Outram, told the hearing the legislation represented a "measured response" to the threat posed by a small number of detainees. He maintained that any person who committed a criminal offence would be subject to criminal sanction.

The aim of the legislation was to provide a more "compliant" and safer environment in immigration detention so that all detainees enjoyed a higher quality of life, he said.

http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/new-law-will-increase-violence-against-asylum-seekers-former-judge-20150416-1mmf56.html
 
Safe and inexpensive: Government spruiks relocation from Nauru to Cambodia in fact sheet to asylum seekers
April 16, 2015
In 1980, Californian punk band Dead Kennedys released their second single Holiday in Cambodia. This week, the Coalition government released a document called Settlement in Cambodia.

Both talk about life in the previously war-torn south east Asian nation. But only the seminal punk song's title does so with any irony.

The Abbott government's "fact sheet", handed to asylum seekers in the Nauru detention centre and refugees living on Nauru by immigration officials, talks up Cambodia as a secure and harmonious society with a low cost of living.

River life in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Photo: Ben Rushton
"Cambodia is a safe country, where police maintain law and order. It does not have problems with stray dogs," the five-page pamphlet notes.

The Australian government's description jars with the most recent security appraisal of Cambodia by the US State Department.

"Cambodia has a high crime rate, including street crime. Military weapons and explosives are readily available to criminals despite authorities' efforts to collect and destroy such weapons. Armed robberies occur frequently, and foreign residents and visitors, including US citizens, are among the victims," the State Department notes.

"The most common type of theft is 'snatch and grab' robbery, and anything that can be quickly grabbed is at risk: cameras, jewellery, purses, backpacks, mobile phones. Pickpockets, some of whom are beggars, are present in the markets and at the tourist sites."

Another highlight, according to the Australian pamphlet is the cost of living. Cigarettes are just $1.59 a packet and a domestic beer costs $1.50, it says.

Petrol is $1.65 a litre, a basket of fresh fruit and vegetables is $20 and "a meal at inexpensive restaurant" $4.53.

Among the incentives to get people off Nauru and settled in Cambodia as part of the $40 million deal inked between Immigration Minister Peter Dutton and the government in Phnom Penh is a range of financial incentives and relocation costs.

Arrivals will be housed in "serviced apartment, guest house or villa" accommodation for up to three months and then up to 12 months in "affordable long-term accommodation".

A case manager will be provided to asylum seekers to secure employment and families will receive "establishment assistance and cash". "You will also receive a financial assistance for living costs, education, health and rent for a period of time."

Comprehensive health insurance will be provided for four years, including mental health.

"Cambodia has a high standard of health care with multiple hospitals and General Practitioners," the immigration document states.

According to Cambodian government data, levels of health are improving. The average life expectancy for males is 60, up from 47 since 1999. Female life expectancy has risen to 65 from 50.

Refugees have been assured that any babies born in Cambodia will be given citizenship and that families will be able to travel freely inside the country and to their home country if they choose.

But the pamphlet states that no refugees settled in Nauru or Cambodia will be resettled in Australia.

The first group of refugees from Nauru are expected to be flown to Cambodia as early as Sunday.

While asylum seekers in detention reportedly refused to meet with Cambodian officials when they visited the centre recently, up to 10 people are believed to have agreed to be resettled.

A spokeswoman for Mr Dutton said the Abbott government remained committed to the agreement with Cambodia.

"The first group of volunteers is anticipated to depart for Cambodia in the near future," the spokeswoman said.

When the Cambodian deal was announced an alliance of agencies, including UNICEF, Save the Children, Plan International Australia, World Vision, Amnesty International, Refugee Council of Australia, International Detention Coalition and Children's Rights International said they had "grave concerns" about relocating refugee families to Cambodia.

http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/safe-and-inexpensive-government-spruiks-relocation-from-nauru-to-cambodia-in-fact-sheet-to-asylum-seekers-20150416-1mm7zy.html
 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/14/400-drowned-libya-italy-migrant-boat-capsizes
 
tigertim said:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/14/400-drowned-libya-italy-migrant-boat-capsizes

drowings at sea only matter when they are convenient to our politicians.
 
Brodders17 said:
drowings at sea only matter when they are convenient to our politicians.

Indeed. These people should perform their distasteful drowning business outside of our maritime borders.
 
Here is a real "charmer" being inspired by our Government's policies

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/conservative-columnist-katie-hopkins-reported-to-police-over-asylum-seeker-views-20150421-1mpjr7.html

Controversial British columnist Katie Hopkins has been reported to police for allegedly inciting racial hatred in an article applauding Australia for threatening asylum seekers "with violence until they bugger off".

In an article for The Sun comparing North African migrants to "cockroaches", Katie Hopkins praises Australians for being like British people but with "balls of steel, can-do brains, tiny hearts and whacking great gunships". Europe should adopt Australia's turn-back-the-boats policy for migrants attempting to arrive from North Africa, she wrote.

On Monday, Hopkins and The Sun editor David Dinsmore were reported to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's Office over the article by the Society of Black Lawyers.

In the complaint, published by The Independent, Society of Black Lawyers chairman Peter Herbert described Hopkins' comments as "some of the most offensive, xenophobic and racist comments I have read in a British newspaper for some years".

Herbert said that Hopkins' use of the term "cockroaches" echoed the use of the word to describe the Tutsi minority and Hutu moderates during the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

He wrote: "The Society of Black Lawyers (SBL) therefore requests that this matter is investigated as a matter of urgency under the Public Order Act 1986. I am aware that this section requires some intention but given the scale of the tragedy currently unfolding, the likelihood some of these migrants may already be in the UK having fled during previous months or likely to land here in due course these comments can amount to incitement to racial hatred.

"We are in the process of writing formally to the International Criminal Court to petition for an investigation into these comments under the provisions of incitement to commit crimes against humanity.

"Given the huge circulation of these comments in The Sun and in the media generally, the propensity for racial violence against people of African descent in the UK is obvious. We request that these matters be investigated as a matter of urgency and the case file be passed to the [Crown Prosecution Service] for a decision to be made as to the merits of a prosecution."

A petition calling for The Sun to sack Hopkins over the article has attracted over 200,000 signatures.

Around 1300 migrants are estimated to have died in less than a fortnight in the waters south of Sicily. On Monday European Union leaders announced that they would launch new military operations against people smuggling networks in Libya, including destroying ships, as well as expanding search-and-rescue patrol
 
So did we or didn't we pay people to return asylum seekers? Julie Bishop denied it last week but suddenly the Govt is surrounded by a cone of silence. If it didn't happen the PM should put an end to the speculation straight away instead of waffling about "by hook or by crook we'll stop the boats".


"There's really only one thing to say here and that is that we have stopped the boats," he said. "That's good for Australia, it's good for Indonesia and it's particularly good for all of those who want to see a better world."

I'm sure the majority of asylum seekers or boat people, or whatever term is used, act out of desperation to see a better world. Are our actions helping them achieve it?
 
rosy23 said:
So did we or didn't we pay people to return asylum seekers? Julie Bishop denied it last week but suddenly the Govt is surrounded by a cone of silence. If it didn't happen the PM should put an end to the speculation straight away instead of waffling about "by hook or by crook we'll stop the boats".


"There's really only one thing to say here and that is that we have stopped the boats," he said. "That's good for Australia, it's good for Indonesia and it's particularly good for all of those who want to see a better world."

I'm sure the majority of asylum seekers or boat people, or whatever term is used, act out of desperation to see a better world. Are our actions helping them achieve it?
According to our PM all displaced people should wait in the queue, all 50 million + of them ! Even if we accept there is a queue ( which largely there isn't) based on worldwide resettlement rates in 2014 it will take 200 years to be to the front.!

And we wonder why people get on boats, not just in Indonesia but all over the world.

Sure lets stop the boats, but what about the people ? Our reaction as a nation is to cut our foreign aid by 40%. It actually makes me ashamed.

I have written 3 times to my local member ( liberal cabinet member) and his reaction has been the same 3 times. He hasn't bothered to reply.

If we have paid people smugglers then I am even more ashamed, but nothing would surprise me with this government on this issue. Not that the ALP is much better
 
If the government is paying people to return asylum seekers that is an astonishing policy. Firstly it seems to add an incentive for boat operators to come. Secondly, the government has always maintained that transporting asylum seekers by sea is an unacceptable risk, but this would increase the amount of transport by sea that asylum seekers will experience.
 
mld said:
If the government is paying people to return asylum seekers that is an astonishing policy. Firstly it seems to add an incentive for boat operators to come. Secondly, the government has always maintained that transporting asylum seekers by sea is an unacceptable risk, but this would increase the amount of transport by sea that asylum seekers will experience.

it is not astonishing because they have shown they do not care about the individuals seeking asylum despite their supposed concern about 'deaths at sea' and because it is not even about stopping people arriving in Australia. it is about votes.
 
The demonisation of "boat people" goes on. It trascends party politics. As I have often said, language is important. This label is used because it removes the association of the people and their story as though that is the only significant thing about them, not their names, their heritage, the reason they have found themselves in this situation. The boat becomes the thing. They are people of the boat. They are not Iraqui, Irani, Rawandan, Vietnamese. They are not carpenters, teachers, doctors, engineers. They are "boat people". It is ridiculous that it has been allowed to get this far. I am ashamed of my governments (Labor as much Liberal) and I am disappointed that our system of government allows for this kind of abhorrent action in Australia's name.
 
If only we could pay the airlines not to transport our politicians when they try to return from overseas ;)
 
KnightersRevenge said:
The demonisation of "boat people" goes on. It trascends party politics. As I have often said, language is important. This label is used because it removes the association of the people and their story as though that is the only significant thing about them, not their names, their heritage, the reason they have found themselves in this situation. The boat becomes the thing. They are people of the boat. They are not Iraqui, Irani, Rawandan, Vietnamese. They are not carpenters, teachers, doctors, engineers. They are "boat people". It is ridiculous that it has been allowed to get this far. I am ashamed of my governments (Labor as much Liberal) and I am disappointed that our system of government allows for this kind of abhorrent action in Australia's name.
Yep spot on.

What almost disappoints me more than our politicians over this issue is that what seems like a majority of the Australian people don't care. I
 
Brodders17 said:
it is not astonishing because they have shown they do not care about the individuals seeking asylum despite their supposed concern about 'deaths at sea' and because it is not even about stopping people arriving in Australia. it is about votes.

Well, consider me told. :-\
 
Interesting to hear Noel Pearson on Q&A last night support the current policy. Acknowledged it resulted in less deaths at sea and less children in detention than the previous policy.
 
mld said:
... Secondly, the government has always maintained that transporting asylum seekers by sea is an unacceptable risk, but this would increase the amount of transport by sea that asylum seekers will experience.

And the boat in question at the moment in regards to us turning it back allegedly ran aground on a reef with children and pregnant women on board. Sounds like more good luck than good management that a disaster didn't eventuate.
 
AMPS said:
Interesting to hear Noel Pearson on Q&A last night support the current policy. Acknowledged it resulted in less deaths at sea and less children in detention than the previous policy.

Someone once said "...repeat a lie often enough..."

The idea that the boats have actually stopped is ludicous. If they had then the navy wouldn't be turning them around would they? So the policy doesn't work. It stops the headlines and the questions it doesn't change the circumstances of desperate people. It is a dirty politics and it uses refugees as political punchlines which is easy because they have no voice and no rights.
 
One thing I can't get my ahead around is if we made it easier and safer to come here, how many people should be allowed into our country per annum?
 
MB78 said:
One thing I can't get my ahead around is if we made it easier and safer to come here, how many people should be allowed into our country per annum?

It's a good question, as part of a bigger debate about what population we should have, and how it should be sustained and catered for. It's a shame that neither major party wants to bite that bullet.
 
Azza said:
It's a good question, as part of a bigger debate about what population we should have, and how it should be sustained and catered for. It's a shame that neither major party wants to bite that bullet.

That's it. And I think the conversation needs to be directed this way. Otherwise we will keep going nowhere with no one giving any ground and using it as a tactic for cheap votes.

It would be a good opportunity for the Greens using the power in the senate to put this front and square as a mature topic of conversation.