Well Well

[Captain Sensible]

So the people who would 'Never ever'(where have we heard that before?) set foot inside Australia have started arriving. So all that money we wasted on the Pacific solution has been ****ed up against a wall. So Australias international reputation has been damaged for nothing.




Enjoy the ride everyone?

[BSA]

"they will never set foot in Australia " - they just have

"They are not genuine refugees" - ummm, yes they are

"We will decide who comes to this country and how they shall come here " - no, the rules will decide that.

"I don't want people like that coming to this country" - They didn't throw anything overboard and they are coming to this country.

"Pacific Solution" Wasn't a solution to anything and its cost us 500 million dollars

Oh well - it goes down a treat out in talkback radioland so who am I to say the government are ruthless, cynical liars ?

seems to work, though, doesn't it ? :(

[The Ewok]

40 odd were let in and 800 odd weren't, so numbers still stack up for Johnny

Even NZ today say they don't want any more boat people and are letting the latest lot rot on East Timor

[Rocco Jones]

Well it's such a difficult situation. It is easy to say we shouldn't let stay here, but we have to ask ourselves what would we do in their situation?

[M29]

Originally posted by Rocco Jones
what would we do in their situation?

Apply for the dole.

[Captain Sensible]

Originally posted by M29


Apply for the dole.



They can apply but they wont be eligible. Only permenent residents of six months standing will be approved.

[Pessimistic]

and the ones sent to NZ will be here in 3 years....

[Philip Ruddock]

True, some of these refugees could have been from the boat, SIEV-4. But as the Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard said, Australia had always intended to take its fair share of the successfully processed asylum seekers. I reiterate his sentiments: "What we will not take are people who seek to enter this country illegally - that is the difference."

People like Justice Bhagwati misunderstands government policy in that he ignores the fact that people in immigration detention have either become unlawful or have arrived in Australia without lawful authority. Essentially our concern is that people would abscond. Experience here and abroad is that people who have received decisions that are adverse, who are being held for removal, if they were freed and in the Australian community they would not be able to be readily found.

Children in detention was not desirable but parents should not bring them. I don't think it's a good thing that they've been submitted to dangerous sea voyages, as they were in a number of cases. I don't think it's a good thing that they've been probably taken away from situations in which they had access to schooling.

The obvious outcome of that is that people who want to achieve a migration outcome in Australia, if they were not lawfully entitled to one, would simply take the view that all you've got to do is bring children with you.

Justice Bhagwati was not an expert observer if he thought guards were armed with guns or that education was inadequate without visiting the school at Woomera. He came with preconceived views ... he spent all his time here talking to lawyers and advocates, he had one day to visit Woomera and he's come to flawed conclusions.

[Captain Sensible]

Originally posted by Philip Ruddock
, the Hon John Howard



Thats Right Honourable Phil. As a government minister you should know that The PM is Right Honourable and everyone else in Parliament is just Honourable. :eek:

[The Ewok]

Originally posted by localyokel

Thats Right Honourable Phil. As a government minister you should know that The PM is Right Honourable and everyone else in Parliament is just Honourable. :eek:

"Phil" is correct

The term "Right Honourable" has been phased out and the PM is just the "Hon John Howard" and only those MP's who are/were ministers can be called "Honourable" and other members of parliament are just Mr/Ms/Mrs

[Captain Sensible]

Originally posted by The Ewok


"Phil" is correct

The term "Right Honourable" has been phased out and the PM is just the "Hon John Howard" and only those MP's who are/were ministers can be called "Honourable" and other members of parliament are just Mr/Ms/Mrs



I stand corrected.

[Philip Ruddock]

Dear Mr Localyokel

Thank you for your post of 2 August 2002 where you raised the issue of the semantics of Ministerial titles, particularly when referring to the Prime Minister.

In Ministerial correspondance, the Prime Minister's signature block is The Hon John Howard MP and this is how he is referred to in the House of Representatives webpage: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?ID=ZD4

It is true that Right Hon may be the official term, but around Canberra, we like to be informal as best we can.

Thank you for your interest in the Government's use of correct Ministerial titles.

Yours sincerely,

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[fabulousphil]

Originally posted by Philip Ruddock
Dear Mr Localyokel

Thank you for your post of 2 August 2002 where you raised the issue of the semantics of Ministerial titles, particularly when referring to the Prime Minister.

In Ministerial correspondance, the Prime Minister's signature block is The Hon John Howard MP and this is how he is referred to in the House of Representatives webpage: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?ID=ZD4

It is true that Right Hon may be the official term, but around Canberra, we like to be informal as best we can.

Thank you for your interest in the Government's use of correct Ministerial titles.

Yours sincerely,

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

If you are who you say you are Phil, who do you barrack for (AFL )
because getting it right might not prove that you are Phil but getting it wrong ......well........the jig is up.

But i have to say your performance has been impressive up to date.

[BSA]

The Honourable Minister barracks for the Gordon Highlanders, not The North Sydney Bears.

[Captain Sensible]

Originally posted by Philip Ruddock
Dear Mr Localyokel

Thank you for your post of 2 August 2002 where you raised the issue of the semantics of Ministerial titles, particularly when referring to the Prime Minister.

In Ministerial correspondance, the Prime Minister's signature block is The Hon John Howard MP and this is how he is referred to in the House of Representatives webpage: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?ID=ZD4

It is true that Right Hon may be the official term, but around Canberra, we like to be informal as best we can.

Thank you for your interest in the Government's use of correct Ministerial titles.

Yours sincerely,

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs



Thanks for your prompt reply Phil. The PM's correct title is of great concern to me, but I must admit that around Footscray we also like to be fairly informal and in that vein we have come up with a few titles of our own that we like to use to refer to Mr. Howard.

Am looking forward to going head to head to discuss your performance in your portfolio.

Kind Regards.

[The Ewok]

Notice how Phil has posted a few times but his post count still registers 0 posts

CONSPRIACY!

[Mead]

Originally posted by The Ewok
Notice how Phil has posted a few times but his post count still registers 0 posts

CONSPRIACY!

I blame the government.

[Voice of Reason]

Originally posted by The Ewok
Notice how Phil has posted a few times but his post count still registers 0 posts

It is strange. But every one of Phil's posts has been quality so far. One can bag him, but he's got a point.

[Philip Ruddock]

Good immigration policy is based on good research. But it also needs a set of clear underlying values. The five core values on which I believe good immigration policy should be based are:

· First, immigration policy must be non-discriminatory in terms of race, religion, colour and ethnicity;
· Second, it must be demonstrably in the national economic and social interest;
· Third, we must assist close family reunion to the extent that is reasonable and sensible;
· Fourth, we must contribute our fair share to the resettlement of those most in humanitarian need;
· And last but by no means least, we must retain the capacity to manage the movement of people across our borders in an orderly and efficient manner.

Underpinning these values is the need for Australia's immigration programs to be conducted with integrity, and defended from those who seek to circumvent them. Australia openly welcomes migrants from anywhere in the world, but preferably migrants who come through the front door - through our properly administered and carefully managed programs. Make no mistake, public support for immigration will evaporate if Australians see backdoor migration undermining the integrity of our programs and if they are not convinced that immigration is providing clear and significant benefits.

Unlike many other countries, we make a considerable effort to help migrants and humanitarian entrants settle into our society and to become Australians. We have, for example, one of the shortest qualifying times for citizenship, and unlike many other countries, becoming an Australian does not depend on your race or ethnicity - it simply depends on your readiness to embrace the civic values that are central to us, including acceptance of racial and cultural difference and commitment to community.

We also provide a generous suite of settlement services for permanent humanitarian entrants. We cannot demonstrate the benefits of a properly administered and orderly immigration program unless we have very good research and statistics. Fortunately, in Australia we have both. But statistics and good program management can only take us so far. Indeed, they are of very little use if we can't employ them to measure our progress towards a clear set of objectives. This sounds easy, but in the case of immigration and population, it is in fact far from simple.

We hear a lot about the so called “Brain Drain” from people concerned about Australia's ability to keep our best and our brightest. It is inevitable, and often beneficial, that young Australians experience life and work in other countries - after all globalisation is a two way street. But it is often overlooked that we operate a healthy surplus in nearly all of the vital professions, including scientists. To succeed in the new century, we also need a highly educated and scientifically literate work force.

A well targeted and well managed Migration Program can help augment such a labour force. In fact, if I had to sum up one reason for the transformation this government has brought to the Australian Migration Program it would be this - to help augment the skills, education and knowledge that Australia will need to prosper in the 21st century.

As I have previously mentioned elsewehere, the 2002-03 Migration Program will be set in the range between 100,000 and 110,000. At the mid-point, this is an increase of 12,000 on the likely outcome for 2001-02. The Program will have around 60,000 in the Skill Stream - that is 58 per cent of the total Program. This will be the largest Skill Stream on record and the largest Migration Program in more than a decade. Other than in exceptional circumstances, the Program will be maintained in this range for the next four years. This will provide additional certainty to decision-makers in both the public and private sectors regarding immigration levels and the impact of these on population.

If we maintain the Program at this level on an on-going basis, we could see our long-term net overseas migration gain average up to 100,000 a year and using some of the standard ABS assumptions, Australia's population reach up to 27 million by 2050.

The 2002-03 Migration Program will address key skill shortages that are impeding the economic and social development of this country. While every effort must be made to overcome skill shortages through education and training of Australians, immigration and temporary entry mechanisms have a critical role to play. Settlement patterns are an extremely important social, economic and environmental issue. So when we come to think about migration and population, although we need to see the picture in aggregate, we also need to think about it at a state and regional level.

And herein lies our difficulty. The geography and the populations of the Australian states and territories vary widely, and this leads to different views about their population futures. Indeed, the Premiers of our two most populous states have widely differing views about this issue, while other states that are anxiously facing the prospect of population decline have yet another perspective. While there are limits to what immigration policy alone can achieve in this area, I have and will continue to give a high priority to doing whatever I reasonably can to develop state specific and regional migration mechanisms. These mechanisms provide state and territory governments and regional authorities with greater influence over the level and composition of skilled and business migrants settling in their jurisdictions.

The larger issues, however, are the general drift of the Australian population towards particular regions and away from others, and the attraction of migrants to Sydney at the expense of other cities. Now, one reason that migrants come to Sydney is this city's global status, reflected, for example, in the location of many regional headquarters of transnational companies. And, in an interesting feedback, these transnationals are then attracted by the availability of a highly skilled multicultural workforce.

This points to the fact that, at the end of the day, it will be a vibrant economy and the creation of a critical mass of migrants that will attract more migrants to other cities and other regions. Those cities and those states that want more people will have to attract them through the long and difficult process of making their economies and their environments attractive to both new settlers and long term Australian residents alike. The Federal Government will continue to work with states and regions in this endeavour. It needs to be understood, however, that population issues are not susceptible to easy fixes and grandiose plans.

Our population future will be a complex web of interacting issues. The first step to considering these issues is to get a good handle on what is demographically possible, and what is not possible.

[ah_19]

tell me phil

who manages the detention camps
and how much profit did they make from thier "workers"

it might give us a better idea as to why they spend so much time there

[Philip Ruddock]

Dear ah_19

Thank you for your post of 3 August 2002 regarding the management of Australia's detention centres.

Justice Bhagwati stated on the `Lateline' program that some non-government agencies (NGOs) had put proposed alternatives to immigration detention to the Government.

Alternatives to mandatory detention were thoroughly examined by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Migration in their report: Asylum, Border Control and Detention, in 1994. The Committee's report raised concerns that any alternative could not ensure that unauthorised arrivals would be available for removal if their applications proved to be unsuccessful.

I would consider any alternative to mandatory detention which would meet the core purposes for which we have detention, that is to guarantee that applicants are:

- available for processing of their asylum claims; and
- available for removal if their claims are unsuccessful.

Those advocating release have often suggested that detainees be maintained by community organisations, but these groups have not been able to provide assurances that they would be responsible for ensuring that applicants remain available for removal.

In the absence of such undertakings, mandatory detention is the only effective means of ensuring that the Government can expeditiously process and, where necessary, remove those who have been found to have no right to remain in Australia.

However, within the mandatory detention framework and consistent with the Migration Act, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs takes innovative approaches to alternative detention arrangements. These arrangements seek to respond to the needs of particular groups, such as women and children. In such instances transfer to an alternate place of detention (such as the Woomera alternative detention project) or foster care (facilitated by State child welfare authorities) may be appropriate. In fact, most unaccompanied minors from Woomera IRPC are now in alternate places of detention, including fostering arrangements, in South Australia.

Moving people into the community would risk problems currently faced in many other countries. For example, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at the UK Home Office has recently admitted that up to 250,000 asylum seekers are living illegally in the UK . Figures out of France suggest that 90 per cent of failed asylum seekers disappear.

Thank you for your interest in Australia's policy on detention centres.

Yours sincerely,

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
Minister For Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[Captain Sensible]

Originally posted by Philip Ruddock
Dear ah_19

Thank you for your post of 3 August 2002 regarding the management of Australia's detention centres.

Justice Bhagwati stated on the `Lateline' program that some non-government agencies (NGOs) had put proposed alternatives to immigration detention to the Government.

Alternatives to mandatory detention were thoroughly examined by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Migration in their report: Asylum, Border Control and Detention, in 1994. The Committee's report raised concerns that any alternative could not ensure that unauthorised arrivals would be available for removal if their applications proved to be unsuccessful.

I would consider any alternative to mandatory detention which would meet the core purposes for which we have detention, that is to guarantee that applicants are:

- available for processing of their asylum claims; and
- available for removal if their claims are unsuccessful.

Those advocating release have often suggested that detainees be maintained by community organisations, but these groups have not been able to provide assurances that they would be responsible for ensuring that applicants remain available for removal.

In the absence of such undertakings, mandatory detention is the only effective means of ensuring that the Government can expeditiously process and, where necessary, remove those who have been found to have no right to remain in Australia.

However, within the mandatory detention framework and consistent with the Migration Act, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs takes innovative approaches to alternative detention arrangements. These arrangements seek to respond to the needs of particular groups, such as women and children. In such instances transfer to an alternate place of detention (such as the Woomera alternative detention project) or foster care (facilitated by State child welfare authorities) may be appropriate. In fact, most unaccompanied minors from Woomera IRPC are now in alternate places of detention, including fostering arrangements, in South Australia.

Moving people into the community would risk problems currently faced in many other countries. For example, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at the UK Home Office has recently admitted that up to 250,000 asylum seekers are living illegally in the UK . Figures out of France suggest that 90 per cent of failed asylum seekers disappear.

Thank you for your interest in Australia's policy on detention centres.

Yours sincerely,

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
Minister For Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs



Its a long answer Mr Ruddock, but it doesnt really answer the question does it? Actually there is nothing in the answer that addresses any part of the question that was asked of you.

So could you answer, and keep it simple please, who manages the centres and how much profit do they make from their 'workers'?

[Philip Ruddock]

Dear Mr Localyokel

Thank you for your further question regarding detention centres.

Australasian Correctional Services Pty Ltd (ACS) manages the detention facilities for DIMIA. ACS specialises in the provision of custodial services in Australia.

DIMIA maintains an official presence at each immigration detention facility and monitors ACS's performance against Immigration Detention Standards (IDS). IDS were developed by DIMIA in consultation with the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office.

Funding is provided to ACS who were appointed through a competitive tendering process. As such, DIMIA does not make any profits from the detention centres; my Department merely provides the funding from which ACS are responsible for their own revenues and expenses. For details of profits made by ACS, please contact ACS directly. Their annual report is available to members of the public.

For further information on detention centres, please contact me:

Philip Ruddock MP
Suite MF 40
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Telephone: (02) 6277 7860
Fax: (02) 6273 4144

Or if you prefer an electronic response, please leave your queries here: http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/contact/index.htm#email

Thank you for your interest in detention centres.

Yours sincerely,

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
Minister For Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[Captain Sensible]

Originally posted by Philip Ruddock
Dear Mr Localyokel

Thank you for your further question regarding detention centres.

Australasian Correctional Services Pty Ltd (ACS) manages the detention facilities for DIMIA. ACS specialises in the provision of custodial services in Australia.

DIMIA maintains an official presence at each immigration detention facility and monitors ACS's performance against Immigration Detention Standards (IDS). IDS were developed by DIMIA in consultation with the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office.

Funding is provided to ACS who were appointed through a competitive tendering process. As such, DIMIA does not make any profits from the detention centres; my Department merely provides the funding from which ACS are responsible for their own revenues and expenses. For details of profits made by ACS, please contact ACS directly. Their annual report is available to members of the public.

For further information on detention centres, please contact me:

Philip Ruddock MP
Suite MF 40
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Telephone: (02) 6277 7860
Fax: (02) 6273 4144

Or if you prefer an electronic response, please leave your queries here: http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/contact/index.htm#email

Thank you for your interest in detention centres.

Yours sincerely,

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
Minister For Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

Dear Mr Ruddock

Thank you for your reply to my query regarding the funding of immigration detention centres in Australia.

You state that DIMIA 'maintains an official presence at each ... facility'. What form does this 'presence' take?

You further explain that DIMIA monitors ACS's performance against Immigration Detention Standards (IDS). Is this document a listing of broad principals (regarding migration policy) to which the government is committed, similar to those you outlined in a prior post?

If so, any analysis of ACS's performance in relation to these 'principals' is based, at least in part, on qualitative judgement. How do you, therefore, ensure that the monitoring is fair, and that it provides an accurate picture of conditions within the detention centres?

Have the broader criticisms levelled at conditions in Australian migrant detention centres been incorporated in the IDS, or in DIMIA's reporting in general? For instance, we hear that there are no recreational facilities in these centres. We hear that there is a culture of medicating for depression with sleeping tablets and painkillers. We hear that staff lack compassion. These appear to be serious and fair criticisms of the system. How can Australian people be sure that such issues are being addressed?

Does DIMIA's reporting consistently show 'all is well'? Or are problems being 'discovered' and addressed? If so, how are the problems being addressed? Are the reports simply read and filed away?

Thanking you, in advance for your continuing discussion regarding this topic.

Localyokel

[Captain Sensible]

PS If you are indeed Philip Ruddock, are we paying for you to play on the computer in the interests of public education or is this a recreational activity?

[Philip Ruddock]

Dear Mr Localyokel

I am happy to participate in any discussion regarding Australia’s Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs policy.

Due to the confidentiality of the contract between ACS and the Government I cannot reveal the nature of the official presence maintained by DIMIA, suffice to say that the Government has full control of the centres, despite them being managed by ACS.

The IDS is not exactly the list of broad principles regarding the Government’s migration policy, but they do espouse them. IDS were developed by DIMIA in consultation with the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. The IDS specify the standard of facilities, services and programs expected in detention centres, including the requirement to provide safe and secure detention. The IDS outline the quality of life expected in the centres and take into consideration individual needs such as the gender, culture and age of the detainees.

The Government ensures that any issues or criticisms of detention services are met by subjecting them to both administrative and judicial review, as well as full parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. In fact, immigration detention is one of the most closely scrutinised Government programs. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman regularly visit detention centres to investigate complaints and conduct their own enquiries. In addition, in February 2001, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs established the Immigration Detention Advisory Group (IDAG). IDAG provides advice on the appropriateness and adequacy of services, accommodation and facilities at the centres. Members were selected for their individual expertise and commitment to immigration, refugee and humanitarian issues. They have unfettered access to centres and consult with detainees and staff to obtain first-hand information on the operation and environment of each centre.

Emphasis is placed on the sensitive treatment of the detention population which may include torture and trauma sufferers, family groups, children, the elderly, people with a fear of authority, and those who are seeking to engage Australia's protection obligations under the Refugee Convention.

I disagree that there are no recreational facilities in these centres, that there is a culture of medicating for depression with sleeping tablets and painkillers, and that staff lack compassion.

Conditions at all detention facilities have been developed to ensure they are consistent with Australia's international treaty obligations and are governed by the Immigration Detention Standards. Detainees are treated with dignity, respect and sensitivity. In addition to secure detention, all centres provide an extensive range of services and facilities, including culturally and nutritionally appropriate meals, educational, recreational and cultural programs. There are also computer, music, telephone and video facilities, libraries and rooms allocated for religious purposes.

For example, at Woomera RHP, the list of facilities include:

· Four TVs, four videos, four stereos
· A Playstation
· A computer
· Small library
· BBQ setting
· Paddling pool
· Sewing, craft supplies
· Sports equipment: soccer, volleyballs and net, basketballs, badminton, children's play equipment, floaties for swimming
· Magazines and newspapers are supplied upon request and residents also have access to borrow these items on their weekly trip to the library.
· Activities including swimming, volleyball, soccer and badminton are organised for adults and children on a regular basis.

Detention centres also offer a full range of health and psychological services. These are provided by fully qualified doctors, nurses and other health professionals and have been checked time and again by organisations such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the UNHCR, and parliamentary committees. The level and range of these services are the same as those available to the wider Australian community and even exceeds services available in some regional areas.

As mentioned, as a further checkpoint, the detention program is closely scrutinised by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Immigration Detention and Advisory Group and the Australian Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Migration.

Obviously detention centres are not flawless. The Government detains people while scrutinising their applications because Australia's Migration Act 1958 requires that all non-Australians who are unlawfully in mainland Australia must be detained and that unless they are granted permission to remain in Australia, they must be removed as soon as practical. People being held in immigration detention have broken Australian law, either by seeking to enter Australia without authority, or having entered legally, failing to comply with their visa conditions. Those who are found to be refugees are released from detention immediately, subject to health and character requirements.

Australia's immigration detention policy was introduced in 1992, and has been maintained by successive governments with bipartisan support in Parliament.

Thank you for your interest in detention centres.

Yours sincerely,

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
Minister For Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[Pessimistic]

Congratulations to Mr Ruddock for participating here, engaging those who seem to be the 'ordinary' people of australia.

The thing which dissapointed me was not how the immigration/refusal process works but how the whole thing was blown up at the last election, for political gain. For that reason it seems only fair that the government spends the next parliamentary term explaining their actions.

[ah_19]

if the conditions are so great, humane and dignified then.
why is it that everyone who visits them for inspections (ie UN) (aside from government employees) says otherwise
why is it that we constantly have former workers and former refugees saying otherwise.

i tend to beleive them over you, because if the government was correct it would welcome media coverage of the detention centers, not only would it refute ANY criticism of the government but it would also serve your #1 priority, getting re-elected.
Logic says that would be the case, if you were not bending the truth you would have absolutely nothing to loose and everything to gain from media inspections of the facilities. And if the media were allowed unrestricted access and reafirmed the governments position i would accept it as truth. As it is logic says otherwise.

isnt ACS a subsidiary of the company that manages americas maximum security prisons
from the top of my head it was someonthing like 600 million to 1 billion dollars profit for the financial year ending in 2000.

[bulldogs1]

Pacific Solution - well, it DID pacify a lot of people just like it was supposed to.Originally posted by BSA
[B"Pacific Solution" Wasn't a solution to anything and its cost us 500 million dollars[/B]

[bulldogs1]

Pure gold, Local, pure gold!Originally posted by localyokel
PS If you are indeed Philip Ruddock, are we paying for you to play on the computer in the interests of public education or is this a recreational activity?

[Bluey]

Who's paying YOU to play on the computer LY?

hehehe :)

[Captain Sensible]

Dear Mr Ruddock

I am pleased to find that you are happy to discuss this issue. One of the main problems we face is misinformation due to sloppy and incomplete handling of questions in the public domain. This problem is endemic in the media, in parliament and in press releases. Rarely are issues discussed adequately, to make people think about right and wrong. Rather, they become ego driven battles between opposing sides. They are twisted into opportunities to belittle oponents, to defend policy at all costs, to present a juicy grab for news bulletins etc..

Considered, unbiased debate is also very rare. Boards such as this one present a unique opportunity for people to exchange their ideas, with the benefit time to reply, anonymity to allow frank opinion exchange etc..

Here is my latest response to your last post:

1. Why is there a need for confidentiality regarding DIMIA representation at detention centres?

2. Is the IDS a publicly available document? Further, are the reports which compare the ideals with the reality, available publicly? (You mentioned that these reports are produced by DIMIA's 'official presence' at the detention centres.)

3. You state that the criticisms made against detention services and policy are subjected to judicial review. Did you not recently attempt to silence judicial comment regarding detention services? Does this mean that judicial review helps 'address criticism regarding detention standards', only if it reflects the government's position that all is well?

5. Criticisms, you say, are also subjected to administrative review. Have the criticisms raised by media (eg treatment for water cannon injuries only being recommended for ACS staff, sleeping tablets and painkillers being standard medication after three months detention, children attempting suicide, hunger strikes etc..) been addressed by this administrative review? I presume these issues would be dealt with by the aforementioned, mysterious DIMIA presence at the centres.

6. You yourself admit that there is bipartisan support for mandatory detention. This does not necessarily suggest that full parliamentary scrutiny will raise the 'right' issues. Indeed, most parliamentary scrutiny seems to involve a thinly veigled effort to embarrass and belittle political opponents.

7. That something is closely scrutinised does not mean that it is efficiently or adequately scrutinised. How regularly do the HREOC, Commonwealth Ombudsman and IDAG visit detention centres? Surely these reports are available to the public? Have any of these reports been negative? Have any reports convinced the government to change their strategy in any way?

8. Who places "emphasis on sensitive treatment of the detention population"? What does this mean? I would argue that withholding people's mail, whisking children back to detention centres when their father is due to meet them, detaining people indefinitely for years - each of these high profile/sensationalist examples show a lack of sensitive treatment.

9. What evidence do you have that detention centre staff treat detainees with dignity, respect and sensitivity? This idea is not reflected in detainees' accounts which have been reported by various media sources.

10. I am glad to see that there are some more recreational facilities than intimated by reports in the media. Can I only rely on your word that these facilities exist?

11. You say that 'cultural programs' are provided in these centres. What does this mean?

12. How are detainees billed for these facilities? Are they made to pay for their detention even in their applications are approved?

13. You say that telephone facilities are available. I thought that detainees were unable to contact others outside the detention centre. What telephone facility is available?

14. Woomera has previously been reported as having more than 1000 detainees at one time. Is this accurate? If not, what has been the highest population at the centre? Do you think that the facilities are adequate for high numbers?

15. You say that weekly trips to the library are made. Does this mean that the library on site is only open once a week? You list 'swimming' as one of the activities. Does this mean swimming in the paddling pool? There is a BBQ setting. Does this mean that detainees have access to cooking their own meals? Why supply computers and playstations without restriction but only supply newspapers and magazines on request?

16. Is there enough room to use the sports equipment provided? Do women participate in these activities or are they only organised for the male detainees?

17. Psychologists that work within the centres have gone public with reports that state detainees need more 'normal' lifestyles. They have also stated that their recommendations are ignored. Is there any way of avoiding such situations? When you say that the health services exceed those in some regional areas, why do you see this as a positive thing, rather than a terrible inditement on the state of health services in regional Australia? Not all comparisons favour services in detention centres. We read reports that our prisons have better facilities than detention centres. Does this seem fair?

18. What has the Australian Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Migration done to scrutinise detention centres?

19. Thank you for finally conceding that detention centres are not flawless. I concede that my understanding of these issues is far from complete. I do not have access to the information required to make an informed opinion. I am trying to learn what I can. How are you working to address the problems within detention centres - so that they come as close to flawless as possible?

20. You say that the Migration Act 1958 requires detention of non-Australians who are unlawfully here. What was done before 1992 - when you explain that current detention policy was introduced. Why was the previous system changed?

21. When you say that detainees who are found to be refugees are released immediately, this unfortunately does little to reflect the problem that processing is so time consuming. What is the average length of processing time? Why can't detainees be subject to preliminary checks, released into the community, and then be required to visit authorities regularly? The decision regarding their long-term status could presented on one of these visits.

22. Were people processed on Pacific Islands assessed according to Australia's definition of 'refugee', or the more strict definition used by the UN?

Thank you for your assistance.

Localyokel

[kimberleykid]

Quote:
"Dear Bigfooty members

Thank you for your posts regarding who is the hard man of Bigfooty.

That person is clearly me. Who else here can manage the Immigration Portfoilo as coldly, ruthlessly, and uncaringly as I?

Thank you for your interest.

Yours sincerely,

The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs"



Gave me a laugh, nice one

[Philip Ruddock]

Dear Mr Localyokel

Time to 'fess up I think ;) I believe I have well and truly made my point.

I would be happy to answer your questions were it not for the fact that I am not actually who I say I am :eek:

I am just a person who is disenchanted, as you are, at the Government's uncaring and ruthless policy on refugees, and how refugees have been painted as villians for political gain. I decided to assume this role to highlight just how uncaring this policy really is. With a few exceptions, all of my posts are either direct quotes from the media, or obtained from the DIMIA website.

I think it would not be prudent to continue, because I would imagine that the Government's tolerance for political satire will only run so far, and I do not wish to get this enjoyable site into trouble. On the other hand, you do raise some very valid points and I encourage you to take these up with DIMIA.

However, I can say that the ACS agreement is not confidential; it used to be but not any more. It can be accessed here: http://www.immi.gov.au/illegals/acs.htm

The IDS are also publicly available and can be accessed here: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/IDCVisits/IDCAppH.pdf

Do not listen to Government rhetoric. Detention centres are virtual prisons. The only other country that imprisons children with adults (that I know of ) are the Phillipines, although I am sure there are many more.

I am glad that there are many like-minded Australians on this board, as evidenced by some intense rebuttals to my posts. There is still hope for this country I think. :) Meanwhile, it is time to retire the evil "Mr Ruddock" :D

Yours sincerely

[kimberleykid]

I go to Curtin University in Perth and put my name down for the Refugee Rights Action Network.

Check out the RRAN
website: http://rran.dhs.org

[skilts]

This policy from the people who gave us Vietnam and the hanging of Ronald Ryan. Such compassion.

Still, Ruddock is a perfect reflection of middle Australia. We all know what's in the middle of Australia, a wasteland.

[Voice of Reason]

Originally posted by Philip Ruddock
:) Meanwhile, it is time to retire the evil "Mr Ruddock" :D


I'll miss your contribution, Phil.