didn't the previous labor prime minister say he was going to do something about the Christmas Island detention centre?

Maybe it just didn't have a high enough priority.

Why does Australia keep subjecting these boat people and their children to such harsh and inhumane treatment?

Were the first convict settlers ever treated as badly?

Shame on us.

Yes I agree, mandatory detention should stop, immediately.

Mandatory repatriation to the place of claimed origan should start immediately, if not sooner.

No one should ever be let into Australia, under any condition, who can’t prove who they are.

I am sick of Oz being taken for a fool, & even sicker of those people who want to make us an even easier target for those want to take advantage of our welfare system

Here we go again! Another bleeding heart writing a 'report' that Aus should abandon detention for 'illegals'.

With all the real human suffering in places like Africa, China, Burma, and many others, it is obvious they have very little to do if the spemd time on our alleged failures. If they want to attack us for human rights abuses, then how about the little girls that suffer FGM here and the forced marriages, also the rapes carried out by Muslim men on their former wives that have been divorced under our laws.

For a barrister, one would think that she would understand that it is illegal to enter Aus without a valid visa and that the sole reason we can detain the boat people is because they are 'illegal entrants'

So much for human rights, they should have a look at the boats these people arrive on, shorly thats not good for human rights. At least in detention they are safe.

Banjo, Catherine Branson is not just a lawyer--she is a QC and the head of the Human Rights Commission. She knows what she is talking about. It is you who is wrong, and who has been impervious to correction for a long time. It is time to apologise.

and for the 3rd year in a row...the 'SO CALLED' "Human Rights" commission (actually left wing socialist parasite/opportunist/bottom feeder amoeba's)

What they say means absolutely zero. We know what their 'open borders' policy is.. not news to anyone who gets out... so.. I consign the 'Human Rights'/communist idiots to the human scrap heap they deserve.

*poof*...done.

Legal, illegal!

So many of us resent the illegal and do not mind the legal.

Our gates are not only open, but red carpeted for anyone who has money. There is a Law; it is called Business Migration Legislation, by which, who can show the money is welcomed in.

Do you hate people because they are poor and dispossessed of rights and risk their life to come to Australia?

I was a migrant, fifty-seven years ago. The Australian Government recruited me not because I had money but because I had muscles and stupidity.

They wanted the Snowy, and they needed laborers and they wanted them single.

I do not vote because I do not wish to give my power to those charlatans who tricked me to a country full of bigots like you.

Ah wonderful, so they all trip over to Christmas Island, all
expenses paid, plus a great wage I am sure, to express
their opinions.

So how much in total, did this little jaunt cost the rest
of us humble taxpayers?

Perhaps the Commissionar should address the fact that the
UN 1951 Convention is 60 years out of date and needs changing,
so that its not misused by economic migrants.

For in that case the real refugees, stuck in refugee camps
around the world, are missing out.

Oops, they of course, would not come under the durestriction
of this commission, for they are outside of Australia.

So the elephant in the room is not addressed, whilst the
Human Rights Commission, at great expense to taxpayers,
shakes its proverbial finger at us.

What a life they lead, on the Govt payroll!

The rest of us just keep paying taxes.

I'm in the USA, not too far from the Mexican border.
Australia has nothing, absolutely nothing to complain about with the handful of people seeking asylum there.

I find it hard to believe how rude and ignorant some of the responses are on this topic.

Be glad we have so few asylum seekers compared to the numbers in the US and Europe.
We can easily manage to give them the assistance they need.

How selfish some Australians sound from this distance. We are a world citizen, we don't exist in a vacuum.We can afford to be generous to others in need.

Our mandatory detention position is an international disgrace.

[Deleted for flaming.]

I've just deleted a comment on this thread, and I've been tempted to delete more. The standard has been pretty low. If you can't do more than sneer, then perhaps you ought to think about not posting at all.

If you come here looking for conversation then you will understand what I am saying, and if you come here looking for a fight, then perhaps you should find another site.

Let me try that again ..

briar, those responses, regardless of how rude and ignorant you find them, are Australians expressing their opinions. Many people find your views equally distasteful.

Not sure where you get the "world citizen" idea and that there are responsibilities attached to that, sounds like UN stuff that is pumped out for wallpapering. Seems to me very few of the nations in the UN have a "world citizen" view in their own countries.

"Our mandatory detention position is an international disgrace.", I agree, it should be much harsher, and offshore somewhere like Nauru.

A detention center should be a deterrent, as the Howard government temporary visa were.

we should not be making holiday camp type accommodations for people.

A lot of Australians are very irritated that "illegal immigrants" get better treatment than many Australians. I say "illegal immigrants" to differentiate from other immigrants - we all know exactly who we mean when we say that, it is the uninvited boat arrivals. It is now part of the Australian vernacular, whether it should be or not is a separate argument.

Why should we be glad we have so "few" arrivals by boat? Zero is what we prefer, whether the US or anywhere else has mishandled their policies is not reason for Australia to soften our stance.

Many Australians see this as the have nots, who have trashed their own countries then all shopping internationally for somewhere better, they most often have not learned from their experiences and seem to want to do it all again here. how many bring their battles and conflicts with them?

If they genuinely wanted to join our society, fine .. but our experience is that they want to embed their own (often failed, or faulty) culture here.

ozbib,
If the author is a QC that is all the more reason she should appreciate that it is our law that makes it unlawfull to enter Aus without a valid visa. That is the reason we can and do detain the boat people.i.e. Because they are acting contrary to our laws. We do not detain those that enter Aus legally.

If you look you will see that even the UN states that an intended asylum seeker must obey the laws of the country in which he seeks asylum. We have undertaken NOT to prosecute those that enter illegally and go on to seek asylum, but we do detain them.

The reason the 'illegals' are not getting universal support is because they are rightly seem to be cheats, liars and fraudsters.

Graham, fair go mate.

You can’t expect everyone to respond with anything better than the article itself, that’s just not reasonable.

Hasbeen, the article isn't abusive and the writer states her point of view calmly and rationally. Just because some of you violently disagree it doesn't licence you to be rude.

I'm happy to have a government agency posting here, and I'd like to see more of it. But we won't if commenters think that they can be disrespectful in their responses. There is no onus on you to agree, but there is an onus to be civil.

Many times the number of people making up the present population of Australia would consider detention centres as luxurious in comparison to what they have. What I can't comprehend is why on one hand we condemn the standard of detention centres yet on the other hand we don't want to send military into countries which cause our detention centres to fill up. We don't appear to worry too much when our poor Banks repossess family homes or when farmers get evicted from their land etc. How many more refugees do we let those military & religious maniac regimes send to our shores before we actually get to the stage where we say enough. Let's go into these countries & stir crap at these regimes & stop the production of refugees. We should also open our eyes & minds a bit more & start viewing many of those who come here as being not genuine refugees because I'm convinced that many aren't.

SHRODE
"Were the first convict settlers ever treated as badly?"
Actually bothering to read about the convicts would have revealed that not only were they put into much worse detention centers, but they were subjected to corporal punishment and the death penalty for minor offenses due to the difficulty of surviving and the scarcity of resources. How such a statement could be made is puzzling.

To the article;

"Put simply, people should only be held in immigration detention if there is a risk that justifies detaining them. If no such risk exists they should be allowed to reside in community-based alternatives to detention while their refugee claims are assessed. "
This I agree with and should be our standard. I would insist that this process is rigorous and errs on the side of caution.

Sorry to be callous, but if a refugee is mentally unsound, they should be BARRED from my country- that in my opinion constitutes a risk, and it is absolutely not my obligation to be put in harms way to heal the scars of the person who is a danger to me. My human rights are put at risk to ensure THEIR human rights are upheld- and personally, the rights of the imposed trump those of the imposer.

- rpg said: "I say "illegal immigrants" to differentiate from other immigrants - we all know exactly who we mean when we say that, it is the uninvited boat arrivals."

Actually, the vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive by plane.

- individual said: "Let's go into these countries & stir crap at these regimes & stop the production of refugees."

'Stirring crap' with 'these regimes' has historically led to exponentially more refugees arriving on Australia shores. E.g. Vietnam War, Iraq wars, Afghanistan war. So, not a good strategy I'd suggest, if less refugees is what you want.

There seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of a few posters as to the difference between 'illegal immigrants' and 'refugees' (or 'asylum seekers'). They are most certainly not the same thing. The UN Refugee Agency can help clear that up for you:
http://www.unhcr.org.au/basicdef.shtml

I'd also encourage everyone to read this asylum seeker fact sheet:
http://www.asrc.org.au/media/documents/myth-busters.pdf

Ok Irmin,
how about not giving them weaponry ? Ony give aid in the form of wheel barrows & shovels. The one & only reason that these troubled places can keep on causing trouble is because greedy westerners & greedy westernised others thrive on the weapon sales.
I still fail to see how the major forces can not go in & out in a few days & sort it all out. It would certainly cause less suffering & have far less impact on the environment. Look at all the oil burning ? Do we ever see any Greenies go in there & do their bit ? No ! Start creating enclaves in these places & in no time at all you'll see a positive change. It's only the lack of will by the alliance of the willing that nothing ever gets achieved. Ah, & get the silly westerners off all the drugs that come from these troubled lands.

"The UN Refugee Agency can help clear that up for you:
http://www.unhcr.org.au/basicdef.shtml"

Who cares really what the UN says or thinks, a bunch of finger waggers who are all quick to point how developed countries show do this or that.

Why doesn't the UN solve these issue?

Too busy telling people what they are doing wrong I imagine

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

'The Hon. Catherine Branson was appointed President of the Australian Human Rights Commission on 7 August 2008....
At the time of her appointment, she was a judge of the Federal Court of Australia, a position she had held since 1994. The jurisdiction of the Federal Court includes jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints alleging unlawful discrimination under Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws.
Justice Branson was the inaugural convenor of the Federal Court’s Equality and the Law Committee, which was created in 1997. She was also the inaugural convenor of the Court’s Human Rights Panel for New South Wales.
At the time of her appointment to the Federal Court, Ms Branson was a member of the Board of Examiners of the Supreme Court of South Australia, a council member of the University of South Australia and a Trustee of the Adelaide Festival Centre Trust. She had earlier been Deputy Chair of the Adelaide Medical Centre for Women and Children and a member of the National Women’s Advisory Council.
Ms Branson is a past President of the Australian Institute for Judicial Administration and a former member of the Board of Management of IDLO (a governmental organisation based in Rome enjoying observer status at the United Nations). She is a member of the International Association of Judges and the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (and was until recently convenor of the association’s Human Rights Nexus Working Party).
Prior to her appointment as a judge, she practised as a barrister at the Adelaide Bar in South Australia, principally in the areas of administrative law, including discrimination law, and commercial law. She was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1992.
Between 1984-89, she was Crown Solicitor of South Australia and the CEO of the South Australian Attorney-General’s Department.' From the AHRC website.

She deserves some respect. She knows what she writes about. And yes, the AHRC does publish material homeless people and other disadvantaged Australians.

I don't know what it is about this issue which leads to such intemperate responses, and the persistence of so many myths. Many decent people have given up writing to OLO on the issue, I presume out of frustration.

The people we are writing about are referred to in legislation as 'unauthorised' rather than as 'illegal'. That is a better term.

The High Court ruled that immigration detention is not a punishment. Unauthorised arrivals are not given a trial; there is no sentence, in which degree of guilt and mitigating factors might be taken into account. We might ask 'why are they imprisoned when they have committed no crime?'

The term 'bleeding heart' originated in the US in an effort to arouse prejudice against people who are compassionate and merciful. It provides no reason for rejecting a view. Attacking the person rther than the argument is cheap and cowardly, and betrays a lack of ability or a lack of willingness to deal with the issues rationally.

IU have no idea what Catherine. Branson does about problems in other countries, apart from what is on her CV on the AHRC website. I do know that the many human rights and civil liberties activists I know are also involved in other organisations, including charities and NGOs within Australia and international organisations, endeavouring to improve the lives of those who need help. (In my case, as a member of Amnesty I have written to people in 47 countries over the past 6 years.)

We can detain people who have entered Australia with authorisation, and Australian citizens, and Australian born citizens--when no crime is even suspected. As for what we do, that is hidden--you can be jailed for revealing it.

'Cheats, liars and fraudsters'. The processes of testing asylum seekers is rigourous and lengthy. Those who fail the tests--the only ones 'rightly seen as cheats...' are deported.

The suggestion that refugees should carry personal identity documents is foolish. Many cannot obtain such documents before they flee; and some would be setting their relatives at risk if they were caught fleeing and were identified

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

To the refugee advocates and their supporters, anyone who is concerned about boat arrivals is just a bigot. On the other side, those in favour of a more "compassionate" policy are seen as having warm hearts, but soft heads (at best) and at worst, as hating their own society and wishing to destroy it.

According to the UNHCR last year, there are 16 million refugees worldwide and 26 million internally displaced people. There is obviously no way that Australia can take all of them. It makes far more sense and is far cheaper for us to take our 13,000 or even 20,000 a year from the camps rather than from boats. There would be no concerns about whether a refugee was genuine, security issues could be assessed offshore, there would be no quarantine issues, people wouldn't be risking their lives and their children's lives on leaky boats and having to be rescued, etc.

We also want to avoid a repeat of what happened in Europe. Numbers started small there too. People who will be starting from nothing in a strange country know that they are likely to need a support network, so they prefer to go to places where there is already a community of their fellow countrymen. The first asylum seekers from Ruritania are most likely to be genuine refugees and pretty desperate, but once a Ruritanian community exists in Australia, it acts as a magnet for more Ruritanians, especially the friends and relatives of the people who are already here (chain migration), and numbers snowball. These people are not necessarily refugees. See Christopher Caldwell's book "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe". The UNHCR has admitted that by the early 1990s, the majority of asylum seekers in developed countries were economic migrants.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm

Cont'd

Cont'd

From Home Office statistics, from 1997 to 2004 (before tougher measures were adopted), there were nearly 500,000 asylum claims in the UK (not counting dependants), but only about 20% of asylum claims were found to be genuine, even after appeal. The overwhelming majority of failed asylum seekers were not deported. See

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/108

"The UK Home Office has acknowledged that up to two-thirds of those refused asylum simply 'vanish'. In 1999 the UK received 71 160 applications; in 1999 fewer than 8000 failed applicants were either deported or known to have left voluntarily.(35)"

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rp/2000-01/01rp05.htm

Home countries may also refuse to cooperate with deportation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/18/failed-asylum-seeker-iran-detention

Divergence, taking increased numbers of people from refugee camps is a good idea; but there are a few problems that need to be fixed. It is not reasonable to ask countries with large numbers of poor people and huge numbers of refugees already to bear the burden of properly maintaing and servicing those camps.

So the wealthier countries would need to increase their contributions (and make sure that the camps benefitted from them).

It is also not reasonable to expect refugees to stay in camps where water supplies are polluted with sewerage, disease is rife, and they are exposed to rape and murder--sometimes by the same groups of people from whom they fled in the first place. So camps would have to be created that avoid these problems.

It is also not reasonable for people to be expected to stay in camps indefinitely, with no knowledge of when they are likely to receive an offer of a country of refuge. There would need to be a queuing system (which does not exist at present).

Such a solution looks rather like the Gillard proposal, and I think it makes sense. The camps would remove the need for risky journeys across the sea, and put the exploitative people smugglers out of business.

The camps would become asylum seeker magnets--and the rear mongers would still claim that cheats were getting through.