Well Well

Remove this Banner Ad

Captain Sensible

Captain Sensible

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Jan 8, 2001
17,438
49
On the 'Group W' bench.
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray
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?
 
"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 ? :(
 
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
 

Log in to remove this ad.

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?
 
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.
 
Originally posted by Philip Ruddock
, the Hon John Howard
Click to expand...



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:
 
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:
Click to expand...

"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
 
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
Click to expand...



I stand corrected.
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

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
Click to expand...



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

CONSPRIACY!
Click to expand...

I blame the government.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...



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'?
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top