The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Out of sight, out of mind? > Comments

Out of sight, out of mind? : Comments

By Andrew Bartlett, published 2/5/2007

The human and financial cost of off-shore detention will continue to be enormous, and completely unnecessary.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Andrew, I've shown your picture around the terminal ward at the Westmead Children's Hospital. They want to know when you'll take up their cause and other issues that impact Australians...you know, battered wives, victims of rape, child victims of incest, homeless Australians etc.
Posted by Sage, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 1:50:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Really good article. Australia's bizarre system of processing refugees has the added benefits of being overtly inhumane and hideously expensive. I suspect that this is because immigration policy has been framed for political rather than practical reasons. I also suspect that the offshore processing of refugees is aimed at keeping the issue out of sight rather than the actual deterrence of 'queue jumpers'. That money could be put to much better use, such as the efficient processing of refugee claims so that people aren't left rotting in detention centres for years on end at the taxpayers expense.

In an election year, I'd like to see a refugee policy that isn't a slave to the immature and illogical fears of a small portion of the Australian populace.
Posted by Tak, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 2:00:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sage, by logical extension of your argument no MP should disagree with Howard Government policy on any international matters, or, if they do, they shouldn't express anything more than token objection.

Oh wait, the caveat there is that they're allowed to once Australia is a utopia.

Is that how you think Australian foreign policy should be decided?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 2:28:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL yes by all means let's encourage dissent and let's hear other views. However, flying a stray cat from Manus Island to Australia (at taxpayers' expense of course)in order to reunite it with an asylum shopper would only seem to confirm that Mr Barlett lives in a world of oneirataxia. Wouldn't the money be better spent on giving Mr and Mrs Smith respite for a weekend while their invalid loved one is placed cared for by someone else? We are talking about logic, are we not?
Posted by Sage, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 2:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sage - your argument indicates that Bartlett is either wasting time, resources or both. You'd rather have him focusing on causes for Australians correct?

But you don't address the key planks of this - Bartlett's arguing that our migration system allows temporary workers but not refugees - it's arguing that the current system is spending an excessive amount of money - Australian money - on an issue that is largely for political rather than practical purposes. So economically speaking, he is arguing for what he believes will be better economic outcomes for Australia.

Outcomes that can ultimately boost productivity, thus a boost in taxes which can be spent on the suitably Australian problems faced by the children in Westmead hospital...

If you disagree with me or Bartlett, fair enough - but you're not even disagreeing with the argument. You're trying to dismiss it entirely, and that's a different matter.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 3:09:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sage, you made the same feeble attempt to divert attention from the basic injsutice, stupidity and wastage involved in this policy last time I had an article regarding refugees published on this site http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5345.

I corrected your allegation towards me on that occasion, which can only mean you are engaging in deliberate smear by repeating something similar. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - it seems to be a common line of 'argument' for many who want to defend a policy which deliberately brutalises people, (including children who you profess concern for) to just respond with smear.

One can only assume that people who are homeless and/or escaping violence, rape, incest, etc only concern you when they are Australians. Even if one wants to take a position as selfish as yours, this policy acts against Australia's own self-interest in a number of ways. My article addresses only one of the reasons why.
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Thursday, 3 May 2007 12:59:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a “constitutionalist” I try to consider what is constitutionally appropriate before contemplating emotional issues.
Constitutionally, any person who is alleged to be in breach of Commonwealth law must be handed over to State authorities and be subjected to a “judicial decision” by a State Court to determine their innocence or guilt. Section 120 of the Constitution provide that the States shall provide detention for any person accused (formally charged) and/or convicted.

As such, I view holding any refugee in any kind of styled concentration camps is unconstitutional. Exchanging refugees is also unconstitutional. We have a constitution and unless we operate within the framework of the constitution we are no better then any other terrorist as we terrorize others to be denied the very rights provided for in the Constitution we claim others do.
It is therefore very simple; If the Federal Government claims refugees are criminals in breach of Commonwealth law then have them charged and placed before a Court of law to be adjudicated upon by the judiciary as to their guilt or innocence. After all, isn’t that for which we have a judiciary?
See also;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3

When a proposed Bill comes before the parliament, any member of parliament can challenge it upon constitutional grounds and then the Speaker/President first must have this appropriately dealt with before the bill can be dealt with by the members let alone voted upon. Perhaps Andrew will be so kind to show where in the Hansard it is shown he opposed each time any unconstitutional proposed legislation (Bill) regarding refugees was tabled. Or perhaps it goes to far to really represent constituents?
Remember SIEV X with the 353 dead, including 146 children?
Not a single person as yet was ever charged in regard of this!
THEY WERE HUMANS TOO!

See also http://www.schorel-hlavka.co
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 8 May 2007 1:59:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Gerrit H Scharal-Hlavka,
Scheees, I'll callyou Gerrit, OK

You talk about the Australian constitution and at the end you refer to the SIEV X.

The SIEV X was an Indonesian vessel, with Indonesian crew. It was grossly overloaded and sailed from an Indonesian port and sank off Indonesia. Survivors were rescued by Indonesian fishermen and taken back to Indonesia.

Gerrit, what the hell has this to do with the Australian constitution?
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 9 May 2007 8:21:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's address Senator Bartlett's economic arguments then. This quote is from Robert Rowthorn, Professor of Economics at Cambridge University in the UK. (quote from Telegraph (UK) 5/7/06)

"If you repeat something often enough, you can perhaps make people believe it. What you cannot do is turn it from being false into being true. And the Government's claim about the economic benefits of immigration is false. As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration. There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative.

Immigration can't solve the pensions crisis, nor solve the problem of an ageing population, as its advocates so often claim. It can, at most, delay the day of reckoning, because, of course, immigrants themselves grow old, and they need pensions.

The injection of large numbers of unskilled workers into the economy does not benefit the bulk of the population to any great extent. It benefits the nanny-and housecleaner-using classes; it benefits employers who want to pay low wages; but it does not benefit indigenous, unskilled Britons, who have to compete with immigrants willing to work hard for very low wages in unpleasant working conditions.

For low-skilled Britons, the result is that there are only two options: very low pay or unemployment. The economy becomes dependent on a constant influx of immigrants who are willing to accept low pay and poor working conditions. That is what Labour ministers mean when they insist that "public services would collapse without immigrants"."

Compare the rising share of profits and the falling share of wages in the context of arguments about shortages of labour here in Australia.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:17:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is perhaps unfair of Sage to blame Senator Bartlett personally for the scandalous treatment of disadvantaged people in this country. His voting record on this is probably better than most. Still, I understand where Sage is coming from. It is not asking for utopia to expect that no one should be forced to live on the streets or to pull out his or her own rotting teeth with a pair of pliers. When politicians bleat about asylum seekers, I tend to react much as I would to parents who are so busy saving the world that they neglect their own children.

In any case Senator Bartlett can't save the world by taking people in. Visit any of the environmental footprint sites on the Web (such as Redefining Progress) and you will see that it would take about 3 Earths to sustainably give everyone a modest European standard of living, even if all the resources were equally distributed. That is now; at its current 1.3% growth rate global population is doubling every 53 years.

Like the other politicians, Senator Bartlett was elected (and is handsomely rewarded by the standards of most people) to represent Australians, not Afghans or Iranians. If he falls on hard times in the future, it will be his fellow citizens, not foreigners, who will be taxed to give him health care and a pension. If Australia is threatened, it will be his fellow citizens who will see themselves or their loved ones drafted to defend his privileges. I want to see all of my fellow citizens treated decently first. Then we can talk about what we can do for foreigners as well.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:33:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1
Banjo,

You asked what Siev X has to do with the constitution, well let me explain.

The Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to detain any person in the styled concentration camps called Commonwealth Detention Centre as “common law “ and “civil” right derives from you living in a State. The Commonwealth of Australia is a creation by Statue and as such has no “common law”.
Hence, the High Court of Australia if using a jury needs to use one of the State of which the Defendant comes.
All persons accused and/or convicted must be handed over to the States and it’s the State authority that can only imprison an accused/convicted person. (Section 120 of the Constitution).
No one can be detained/deported, regardless if the Minister has ordered so, unless this has been formally ordered by a “judicial decision” by a State Court. This, as the guilt or innocence of any person can only be determined by a judicial officer. That is what is termed separation of powers!
What we had was the Australian Federal Police, using taxpayers money to so to say prevent people to come to Australia. Now, with or without their knowledge this was resulting then in the death of many because their boats were made unseaworthy. In my view, the AFP committed crimes by funding this kind of tactics, as much as Carl William (Victoria) was pleading GUILTY to murder having funded this. We have a Constitution and the AFP is not above it! Likewise, the holding of people at Ashmore Reef, during the 21001 federal election and forcing them back to the perils of the sea on orders of John Howard was not only cowardly but also illegal and indeed criminal (consider the Titanic inquiry reports that no one should be left to the perils of the sea) as it is against legislation to force an unseaworthy boat to leave the shores.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 14 May 2007 12:52:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2
Likewise John Howard had no prerogative powers to authorise the armed invasion into Iraq and hence committed treachery and indeed treason. Yet, he was sending people back into unseaworthy boats while he was a major instigator to cause people to flee their homeland because of the upcoming war.
Neither was it constitutionally permissible to spend moneys from consolidated Revenue to basically murder people in other countries by making their boats unseaworthy and causing them to drown. I am not aware of any appropriation bill having been before the parliament to allow such kind of spending, and indeed would not be possible to be voted upon by the parliament as it can only provide funding for the maintaining of the commonwealth of Australia “for the peace, order, and good government” and to contemplate and/or funding the murdering of people (refugees, etc) isn’t any of it.
Neither the holding of refugees in pacific solution destinations! The Commonwealth of Australia has a choice, it either charges every refugee with a crime and place the person before a Court of law, so the person can answer the charge or the Commonwealth of Australia let them being in peace. To hold people in detention for years on end and then finally accept them as refugees hardly is “good government”.
Also, the deportation of any child born in the Commonwealth of Australia, other then those born to foreign diplomates, is unconstitutional, but that is another long story.
Perhaps this response may do your request?
Gerrit
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 14 May 2007 12:54:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr. Schorel-Hlavka,

Even assuming that you are correct in your interpretation, the Constitution and international agreements are not suicide pacts. They are human agreements that can be changed or abrogated.
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 10:14:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Constitution is our ultimate law. Anything else has to conform to it. If we do not like it then we have a choice to express this in a Section 128 of the Constitution referendum and so amend the Constitution, but unless and until this is done anything that is being don in conflict to the Constitution is unconstitutional and so unlawful.
International agreements are made by Governments because it may suit them but cannot override constitutional constrains. To do otherwise would mean that the Government could nullify the Constitution entirely by making all kinds of agreements. For example the prohibition regarding religion could be side stepped by making some agreement with another country regarding religious matters.
The very existence of the government, so also the parliament and the Judiciary, is because we the People have agreed for them to operate within the terms we provided in the constitution. We sanctioned them to work within it. The moment they go beyond that they are violating our rights, and once you accept them to do so, merely because it might suit your purpose in something, then they can do it in regard of anything else what you may not particularly like.

The Constitution is our PERPETUAL LEASE and we should not allow it to be vandalised because of certain issues that we may like to have done. Nothing stops us to amend the Constitution by the provisions outlined in Section 128 and as such it is not that the Constitution it too old or too difficult rather it protects our constitutional rights and anyone coming under its provisions, that includes refugees.
We cannot have it both ways, so to say, have the cake and eat it. We have a Constitution we respect and observe or we have a dictatorship!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 2:04:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gerrit,
I reinterate. the Australian Constitution has nothing to do with the sinking of the SIEV X. You obviously believe that the AFP, or other Australian Government agents, had something to do with making the SIEV X unseaworthy. I put it to you that it is simply a conspiracy theory and there is no evidence to support these wild theories. Nor is there any evidence suggesting that we did not look hard enough for the SIEV X.

The simple fact is that the SIEV X was grossly overloaded, like most of the other vessels that proceeded it. The Tampa picked up people from a sinking boat. I wonder if it has occured to the conspiracy theorists that if the Tampa had not been hyjacked, and went to Indonesia as intended, the stories of their voyage may just have prevented the SIEV X dissaster.

As I said before, it is amazing that it took so many voyages in overcrowded boats before a catastrophy occured.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 4:38:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fact is that the AFP (Australian Federal Police), a law enforcement agency was involved in paying monies to Indonesians to deter refugees from coming to Australia using taxpayers money. That is unconstitutional.
It is not relevant then if those being paid did or didn’t tamper with SIEV X specifically rather that they did in certain instances make boats unseaworthy! A criminal conduct the AFP cannot excuse itself from. They had no business in the first place to pay people to get involved in criminal acts.
To me the best way to resolve it is to have the head of the AFP and other charged and let a Court of law then determine their guilt or innocence, but as the AFP itself was not willing to await a Court of law to determine if a refugee was a refugee or not but took the law into their own hands, then in that regard we are entitled to condemn their actions, in particular where it is a law-enforcement agency being involved in criminal activities. The AFP cannot play a Pontius Pilatus to try to wash the blood of their hands, as they had no business in the first place to get involved in criminal activities such as having people making boats unseaworthy. It is not relevant if they specifically knew or authorised it, rather, so to say, that it was expected that they weren’t paying out money for Indonesians to give farewell greeting cards to refugees!
As for the Tampa, there is a saying, “You cannot go to Court with dirty hands”. Meaning you cannot argue about someone doing wrong after you have wronged yourself.
Under International law and indeed by the findings of the sinking of the Titanic boards one must render assistance to those at the perils of the sea.
It was the Federal Governments refusal to allow the Tampa (having on request of the Federal Government rescued the people in the first place) that caused the problems. The people rescued had therefore every right to pursue to be delivered to the shores of Australia.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 7:19:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy