Asylum Seeker Solution?

I was recently put on to a blog by Henk Luf where he poses ways of dealing with asylum seekers that appear on the face viable, humane and sensible.  I don’t agree with all his measures but on the whole could provide better solutions than we currently possess in Australia.  If only the Leaders of all sides would stop using asylum seekers as political footballs and came to a sensible solution.

Here is the first couple of his suggestions:

AUSTRALIA’S ASYLUM SEEKER /REFUGEE PROBLEM EASILY FIXED.

While there is currently a great debate in Australia over how the country should deal with it’s asylum seeker / refugee problem this following the rejection by the High Court of the Labor regime’s ‘Malaysia solution’, the actual solution to the problem is in fact a fairly easy and indeed legal one both in international terms as well as domestically.

The basic outline would be as followed and would include measures to deal with people smugglers as well those illegally entering Australia by air as well as overstayers.

1. Those arriving by boat with their papers would be processed on Christmas Island initially and then complete the refugee process on the mainland. Upon their papers having been found genuine and once they have been found to be refugees they would then be released into the community on ‘temporary protection visas’ their final status to be determined by the UNHCR as to their safety within their home countries. This could mean that they could either be granted ‘permanent refugee status’ or be returned to their home countries should such a return be deemed safe. Only those granted ‘permanent refugee status’ and subsequently permanent residency and /or citizenship would have family reunion rights.

2.Those arriving without their papers would be held in detention on Christmas Island or another secure facility until such time that their identity has been established upon which they can then be transferred to the mainland and issued with ‘temporary protection visas’ should they be found to be genuine refugees. The process would be slower thus providing an incentive to keep hold to their passports or other identity papers.

3.Those found to be ‘economic migrants…

Read more here

(via http://worldevents1.wordpress.com/)

 

My initial thoughts on Henk Luf’s solutions:

1. The sentiment is right.  I think however, the use of the term Temporary Protection Visa may confuse some people and think the Howard TPV system is back.  Minor issue but still one.   I think too the issue of timing is important.  How long will be minimum times for custody etc…
2. Same as 1.
3. I think there always needs to be a chance for review.  Whisking people out of the country may be more expeditious but Immigration Department officials make mistakes and if there is no chance of review in Court then this goes against what our country stands for.  After all avenues for review are up I’m happy for the 48 hour deportation period to commence.  The problem is always going to be when the home country wont accept them back.  But that is another issue I suppose.
4. Automatic jail sentences of 7 years for operators of boats is too harsh a penalty.  They are generally paid very little to make the journey and would know their fate when caught.  This should tell you what state of mind they are in (dire economic).  And while they probably understand the illegality of their actions I think that their actions are not worse than Manslaughter, Grievous Bodily Harm, Unlawful Wounding and Rape offences which quite frequently receive lower than 7 years jail terms.  And these are certainly not mandatory minimums like that suggested.  Sure punishment must occur but it must fit the crime.
5. 15 years might the right penalty so long as is isn't a mandatory minimum.
6. Excellent idea
7. If an overstayer is not claiming asylum I have no problem with their deportation within 48 hours.  But there must be an avenue of appeal.  Time limits should apply to this however.
8. Same as 7.
9. Same as 7
10. Fine idea.
11. Fine idea.
12. Fine idea.  But more work should be done to develop cooperative approaches to catch these boats prior to leaving the point of origin.  Incentives should be given to have those countries prosecute and stop the boats leaving. 

 

 

A novel idea that many will probably hate*

Australia could set up refugee processing centres (living in the community) in places such as Indonesia to stop people getting on boats.  I don’t know the numbers of asylum seekers there but might stop them getting in a boat to come here.   We have to deal with them anyway and we want to “break the people smugglers business model” (*argh I hate that phrase).  This might just do it. 

 

* This is an idea trotted out without much analysis or research. 

Marriage by another name is not marriage

Queensland Deputy Premier Andrew Fraser says he intends to introduce a Bill allowing Civil Unions in Queensland.  While not committing his party either way (mostly because he is politically impotent as Campbell Newman makes all the decisions) Shadow Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie said:

“It's basically marriage by another name,”

“It's always been our belief, our philosophical belief and policy position, that the current marriage act as it stands … goes to the heart of the institution of marriage and we see no need to change it.”

“My initial reaction is this is just a distraction from the real issues to get him [Mr Fraser] and his people talking about issues other than what's important to Queenslanders at the moment,”

(via Brisbane Times)

Why is it that whenever someone raises the issue of Marriage Equality it is done for reasons such as ‘causing a distraction’?  Why is it not a real issue?  Because white, heterosexual males don't believe it is a real issue?

Don’t get me wrong the ALP is a long way behind in this debate as well.  Fraser comes to the game late in his career as a political heavy in Government.  Where was he with this proposal over the past five years? And where is the Federal Labor Government?

But I think the real issue is not for the State Government.  The real issue is that Marriage equality is not found in allowing civil unions.  Civil unions are a different, almost lesser standard.  Equality and a society without discrimination is what this Country should be striving for.  But it seems to me that many of our elected politicians believe it perfectly acceptable to discriminate in the area of Marriage.  

Civil unions are a way of creating a patch over social injustice so people wont notice or care about the discrimination some people face. But a civil union is ALL the Queensland Parliament can do in this debate.  It is up to the Federal Parliament to end this discrimination and injustice and enact marriage equality laws.  Because “Marriage by another name” is not marriage.

Abaci and slate boards mandatory in a Tony Abbott Government!

#auspol

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott shows us he is an old world kind of guy.  He appears to know very little about technology.  Thank god Malcolm Turnbull didn’t leave Parliament or else Tony Abbott might be mandating abaci and slate boards in the national curriculum!

Low-tech Tony

IT'S a little more than a year since that celebrated interview in which Tony Abbott shocked the nation with this revelation: "I'm no Bill Gates here and I don't claim to be any kind of tech head." As became apparent during an interview with Jon Faine on ABC Melbourne yesterday, Abbott hasn't upgraded:

Faine: "And just finally, on a fairly trivial point [our favourite type], but one that people will undoubtedly read more into depending on your answer. Julia Gillard in her letter to you crosses out the formal typed, 'Dear Mr Abbott', and replaces it with a handwritten, 'Tony'. The reproduced letters on the front page of today's The Australian newspaper sees you do not reciprocate with the informality."

Abbott: "And please don't read too much into it, Jon. I had to send that letter electronically and I can't cross something out and write in my name electronically, or at least I don't know how to do that. Maybe others can do it but I can't do it! But I would have, I would have, if I'd had the ability to do it I would have done it in the return correspondence."

There are plenty of bright young sparks in Abbott's office; perhaps it's time for them to stage an intervention.

(via STREWTH! James Jeffrey)

 

On a side note I hate when people cross out the title and handwrite in the persons name.  It’s just annoying to me. 

The only losers are Smith, Milne and Bolt

Michael Smith of 2UE, Glenn Milne of The Australian and Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun last week all attempted to bring down Prime Minister Julia Gillard with attacks on her judgment.

But the funny thing is they are the only ones who have lost anything in this who fiasco!

Glenn Milne has been axed from the ABC’s Insiders program (which is sad cause it would have been fun to see him and David Marr go at it about the article):

Statement regarding Glenn Milne

Glenn Milne was an occasional contributor to the Insiders program. He has been informed that Insiders has decided not to offer him any further appearances on the program.

This decision is based on a range of factors, one of which included The Australian's decision to both withdraw and apologise for an inaccurate column by Mr Milne on August 29, 2011 which did not meet the newspaper's own editorial and legal standards.

Panelists are selected for inclusion in the Insiders program based on the quality of their work for their various publications and outlets. Mr Milne's column containing what The Australian called "untrue" assertions about the conduct of the Prime Minister was therefore relevant to his role as an Insiders panelist.

In the context of live television, panelists have serious editorial responsibilities, and this was the basis for the ABC's decision: we were not confident that these responsibilities would be met.

 

Now Michael Smith of 2UE has been suspended:

2UE 'absolutely' support talkback host ... but suspend him anyway

The talkback host Michael Smith has been temporarily suspended by 2UE station management after he was "slammed" by the ABC's Media Watch program last night.

…

The general manager of 2UE, Tim McDermott, said Smith was off air "temporarily" to "put a bit of caution to the wind".

He said the station supported Smith "absolutely" but thought it prudent to remove him from his show before a meeting tomorrow to discuss this issue after "we got slammed by Media Watch".

…

Media Watch host Jonathan Holmes said last night that "Smith either didn't know, or didn't care, that every allegation in it has been aired, and dealt with publicly by Julia Gillard, multiple times".

 

And Bolt nearly took his bat and ball and went home:

Column - How Gillard tried to kill a story

Andrew Bolt

Yesterday morning I was considering resigning as a News Limited columnist.

I thought this company that I love, that I have long admired for its defence of free speech, had caved in to pressure from a Prime Minister to close down reporting of a matter of public interest.

That matter was Gillard’s former relationship, professional and romantic, with union official Bruce Wilson who, unknown to her, was ripping off employers and members of the Australian Workers Union, of which he was state secretary.

 

You can watch the Media Watch program on this story here.

 

But no doubt all three will be back and attacking the Prime Minister better than ever in no time.

CSG populism at odds with his Party’s approach

I recently watched an episode of Landline where the competing interests of Farmers and CSG Miners were highlighted. There is a great divide between the Miners belief in the science and the Farmers scepticism. And as much as I understand the principle that we don't own the minerals beneath our land I still have much sympathy for the farmers. This not an easy issue. The Miners and Government's say that CSG mining is safe and doesn't affect water stores. Many don't believe them and argue that we wont know the affects for many years and perhaps when it is too late.

I don't know the answer. Hopefully some independent research

Campbell Newman however has accused the Queensland Labor Government of "allowing CSG projects to grow at break neck speed to prop up their budget without concern for farmers and the environment."

But he fails to mention that this industry has had bi-partisan support.

But Campbell left himself a back door from which, when in power, he will miraculously step when he fully supports the CSG industry. He said:

"We will only allow CSG to go forward where it clearly doesn't affect the water resources under the ground that are so vital for future generations."

Isn't that the position already held by the Queensland Government? This is also the position now decried by the two great populists Tony Abbott and Campbell Newman.

Voters should be able to expect the Leader to enunciate a clear policy position which isn't at odds with the Party's actual position.

(Via http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/newman-vows-to-protect-farmers-against-csgs-spread-20110813-1irp6.html)

You can’t govern from opposition!

#auspol

As I have previously blogged Tony Abbott will do anything to become Prime Minister.  His policy development strategy can be simplified and taken from his own words “you can’t govern from opposition.” (See below clip)

His position on the climate change debate is, I think, the greatest indicator that he will do anything and say anything to get into the lodge. 

First, Abbott claims climate change is crap.  He then writes in Battlelines that the Liberal party should just pass the ETS for political reasons.  Then, when he sees an opportunity to oust Malcolm Turnbull, he supports a vehement opposition to the ETS.  The Government, under Kevin Rudd, blinked and the ETS was shelved.  Now a Carbon Tax is enemy number one for Tony Abbott.  Except he provided an interview (before becoming Opposition Leader) saying that if a price on carbon was necessary a carbon tax was the way to go. 

So what is he saying now?  Is he back to “climate change is crap”?  This appears to be one logical explanation.   The only other one I can come up with is that this is the best way for him to get to the lodge.  After all that is what life’s all about, isn’t it?

 

Here is the clip where Tony Abbott supports a carbon tax.

Grubbgate: Why should journalists be immune?

#grubbgate

The cyber world went into overdrive last week following the revelation that Sydney Morning Herald Journalist Ben Grubb was arrested by Queensland Police in relation to receiving images from a Christian Heinrich, a security expert, who had obtained them from a Facebook page that he was not entitled to have access to.

Lawyers, journalists and the Twitterati have been madly publishing harsh critiques of the police. Many inaccurate statements have been written which make the police look heavy handed and possessing questionable judgment. 

I read with some disappointment an article by Peter Black (whom I greatly respect and was my teacher at one point) from the QUT law school where he argues that:

This incident raises questions relating to the … the questionable judgment of the Queensland Police in deciding to pursue the journalist who reported the story (and not as yet the researcher who managed to obtain access to the private photos), and whether Australia’s laws provide proper safeguards for journalists.

But this commentary is at odds with the transcript of the interview between police and Grubb which was posted (the day prior to his article) by the SMH where it says:

EC: Yeah ok but unfortunately we can't deal with Christian right now for various reasons.

BG: He went on a plane?

From the overall tone of the interview it appears that Heinrich is the person in the sights of the police.  They even asked Grubb to provide a statement to be used against Heinrich.   Black also argues that “[t]he Queensland Police presumably saw [Grubb’s] story, with the photo, and believed that Grubb therefore may have had evidence relating to a criminal offence.”  Again he makes assumptions on matters that are found to be false.  The police only acted after receiving a complaint from Chris Gatford, the husband of the woman whose Facebook photos were obtained. 

Finally, Black argues that this is not a case of computer hacking under the Queensland Criminal Code.   He says that:

Section 408E of the Queensland Criminal Code Act 1889 deals with computer hacking and misuse.  However, as Heinrich did not use “a restricted computer without the consent of the computer’s controller” to obtain access the privacy-protected photo, that provision would not apply. 

I think this is a narrow view of the law.  While I yield to his credentials as a law scholar, I would argue that this charge cannot be thrown away so casually.

My reasoning is that Ms Gatford has secured her photo’s behind a password and restricted their access to non-friends.  What has occurred is that a backdoor was found in order to circumvent the safeguards imposed by Gatford.  To say that finding backdoors around security passwords to gain access to private information or photo’s is not hacking opens even wider problems for internet users.  The URL’s for the location of the photo’s are also protected by a code – the random URL.  It allegedly took Heinrich 7 days to work through and access the right URL code to obtain these photo’s.  Facebook and Ms Gatford had taken steps to protect these photo’s through a password and random URL links.  I think this would satisfy the definitions of restricted computer and controller in the computer hacking section of the Queensland Criminal Code.  But this is just my opinion on the law taking into account what facts are in the public domain. 

Where I feel the police have been harshly treated is that they received a complaint that an illegally obtained photograph was sent to a journalist who subsequently published it in the SMH.  What were they supposed to do?  Ignore the complaint?  No, they spoke to the only person available who could assist, Ben Grubb.  While the actual arrest was probably unnecessary in the circumstances, it was not unlawful.  I have also heard a ridiculous claim (by Terry O’Gorman, VP Civil Liberties Council) that police arrest powers are confined to cases of Murder or serious crimes.  That may be what Terry wants but it is not the law. 

The real problem here is that many people seem to think that journalists should be given a free pass.  If the data obtained were profiles (including photographs) from a child abuse victims support Facebook page (rather than an adults personal page) and this was sent to a known paedophile would the response be so harsh?  Would lawyers and journalists be up in alms about the rights of the paedophile to keep the photo or publish it online?  Why should journalists be treated differently?  Who says that journalists are always ethical?  They suffer the same flaws as the rest of us.  And some have been known to go over the top in their reporting. 

I for one don’t want the situation where police are given the choice of who to investigate and who to leave alone.  The police acted lawfully, professionally and appropriately.  Had Grubb not received and published the photograph in question, it would have been a great story on the security vulnerabilities in Facebook.  But to receive and publish other people’s private photographs in the paper, without their permission, overstepped the bounds of common decency and possibly the law. 

What historical figure would you most like to meet?

Jesus - Not because I'm overly religious but to see if what we're told today is a perversion or not

Ask me anything

Who do you think listens to 4BC radio?

#auspol #4bc

Looking at their straw poll it would seem not to be ALP voters!

An excellent piece on sexual discrimination

#auspol

At this time, when gay marriage is back on the agenda, I thought it relevant to spread a good article written by the Honourable Justice Michael Kirby AM on the use of religion to defend discrimination against homosexuals.  Definitely worth a read.  At least for one side of the argument.

How does a tax battle climate change?

#auspol

Firstly, I am no scientist.  I am no economist.  I believe the majority of climate scientists agree in anthropogenic climate change.  This is purely my take on the rectification of climate change.

My problem with the carbon tax (apart from the lie / not  a lie argument) is that I don't see how this type of tax will reduce carbon emissions or have any effect on climate change.  To place a tax on how much carbon is released in the air has no bearing on the amount of carbon being released.  It simply charges an amount of money.  There is no cap on emissions. 

Surely, there needs to be a cap on the amount of emissions released and a way of forcing polluters to control and reduce the amount of emissions they produce.  Wasn't this the idea of the ETS? 

I haven’t seen any any better way of reducing emissions than an ETS.  We really need a sensible debate in the open air without politics coming into it.  But I think that is a fanciful idea!

Please give me your feedback on this debate and tell me if I have it way off on the carbon tax.