Michael Duffy | SMH | February 13, 2012
Occasionally I spend a day wandering from trial to trial in the Downing Centre, Sydney's giant justice factory. It's one way of keeping in touch with certain aspects of the city. A while ago I began to notice small dark men in the dock, always with an interpreter.
These are the crew from the Indonesian boats that carry asylum seekers to our shores, charged with people smuggling and farmed out by the Commonwealth to the states for justice. There are lots of them: as of last September, almost 200 had been convicted and another 251 were due before the courts.
The trials generally follow the same pattern: a naval and a federal police officer are flown down from north Australia to give evidence, followed by half a dozen passengers from the boat, who are brought from some distant detention centre to confirm that the accused was in fact responsible for sailing the vessel. The evidence can be interesting when the passengers describe their journey from home in some detail.
If you attend one of these trials, which are open to anyone, you will notice a strange thing. Although our leaders have long assured us the crew of these boats are vile people smugglers preying on human misery, in fact they often seem to come from far more wretched circumstances than their passengers.
These are frequently well educated people such as engineers who, despite the problems that made them leave home, were wealthy enough to raise something like $10,000 for the passage of each member of their families. And most of them have a future in Australia. The fishermen, in contrast, are the poorest of the Indonesian poor - as their appearance indicates, they come from the fringes of the Javanese empire.
Showing posts with label Asylum Seekers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Asylum Seekers. Show all posts
Monday, February 13, 2012
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Harsh penalties for boat crew 'target wrong people'
Jared Owens | The Australian | December 31, 2011
NINE Australian judges have now criticised laws imposing mandatory five-year jail terms on the crew of asylum-seeker boats, with the latest saying the harsh penalties target the wrong people, condemn their children to "extreme poverty" and have no deterrent effect.
Sentencing two impoverished Indonesian fishermen this month, Queensland Supreme Court judge Roslyn Atkinson said the laws were failing to catch the smuggling kingpins who move freely between Indonesian villages in search of more crew members to bribe on to the boats.
"Those people who employ men like you will just move to another village because they regard you as completely expendable, and people in small villages without newspapers or the means of modern communication are most unlikely to hear of a sentence imposed in an Australian court," Justice Atkinson said in Brisbane on December 2.
Since the policy was introduced under the Howard government in 2001, it has been criticised by at least nine judges in NSW, Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory.
Northern Territory Supreme Court judge Judith Kelly -- sentencing Edward Nafi, 58, in May -- said the five-year penalty for the offence was "completely out of kilter with sentences handed down in this court for offences of the same or higher maximum sentences involving far greater moral culpability".
Other judges to complain of the laws include Northern Territory Supreme Court Chief Justice Trevor Riley and judges of the same court, Dean Mildren and Peter Barr; West Australian District Court judge Mary Ann Yeats, NSW District Court judge Brian Knox and Queensland District Court acting judge Brad Farr.
But Federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon yesterday backed mandatory sentencing, saying through a spokesman it was an effective deterrent when combined with other measures such as education campaigns.
When The Weekend Australian presented Ms Roxon's office with a parliamentary petition she tabled in 2001 denouncing mandatory sentencing in the NT and Western Australia as racist and insisting on greater discretion for judges, the spokesman said the Attorney-General was unavailable to comment.
Justice Atkinson said the convicted men, the cook and deckhand aboard a boat intercepted in March last year, had four children between them aged between 17 and three, who would "suffer dreadfully" without their fathers.
Jufri, 41, the cook, was the sole income-earner for his family of four, who live in an 18-square-metre hut with a dirt floor. His wife now works shelling crabs for 1.5 cents an hour.
The other man, Nasir, 42, has two children aged 17 and eight who now have no breadwinner. Nasir is skimping on essentials such as soap and toothpaste so he can send some of his $8 daily prison allowance back home.
"The serious offenders at whom (mandatory sentencing) must surely be aimed are those who profit from people-smuggling . . . rather than people like yourselves who are certain to be caught and who live in such impoverished circumstances that the small amount of money you would make from a journey such as this makes it worth taking the risk," Justice Atkinson said.
NINE Australian judges have now criticised laws imposing mandatory five-year jail terms on the crew of asylum-seeker boats, with the latest saying the harsh penalties target the wrong people, condemn their children to "extreme poverty" and have no deterrent effect.
Sentencing two impoverished Indonesian fishermen this month, Queensland Supreme Court judge Roslyn Atkinson said the laws were failing to catch the smuggling kingpins who move freely between Indonesian villages in search of more crew members to bribe on to the boats.
"Those people who employ men like you will just move to another village because they regard you as completely expendable, and people in small villages without newspapers or the means of modern communication are most unlikely to hear of a sentence imposed in an Australian court," Justice Atkinson said in Brisbane on December 2.
Since the policy was introduced under the Howard government in 2001, it has been criticised by at least nine judges in NSW, Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory.
Northern Territory Supreme Court judge Judith Kelly -- sentencing Edward Nafi, 58, in May -- said the five-year penalty for the offence was "completely out of kilter with sentences handed down in this court for offences of the same or higher maximum sentences involving far greater moral culpability".
Other judges to complain of the laws include Northern Territory Supreme Court Chief Justice Trevor Riley and judges of the same court, Dean Mildren and Peter Barr; West Australian District Court judge Mary Ann Yeats, NSW District Court judge Brian Knox and Queensland District Court acting judge Brad Farr.
But Federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon yesterday backed mandatory sentencing, saying through a spokesman it was an effective deterrent when combined with other measures such as education campaigns.
When The Weekend Australian presented Ms Roxon's office with a parliamentary petition she tabled in 2001 denouncing mandatory sentencing in the NT and Western Australia as racist and insisting on greater discretion for judges, the spokesman said the Attorney-General was unavailable to comment.
Justice Atkinson said the convicted men, the cook and deckhand aboard a boat intercepted in March last year, had four children between them aged between 17 and three, who would "suffer dreadfully" without their fathers.
Jufri, 41, the cook, was the sole income-earner for his family of four, who live in an 18-square-metre hut with a dirt floor. His wife now works shelling crabs for 1.5 cents an hour.
The other man, Nasir, 42, has two children aged 17 and eight who now have no breadwinner. Nasir is skimping on essentials such as soap and toothpaste so he can send some of his $8 daily prison allowance back home.
"The serious offenders at whom (mandatory sentencing) must surely be aimed are those who profit from people-smuggling . . . rather than people like yourselves who are certain to be caught and who live in such impoverished circumstances that the small amount of money you would make from a journey such as this makes it worth taking the risk," Justice Atkinson said.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
A Human Rights Agenda for the new Attorney-General, continued
We asked some of Australia’s leading human rights advocates, activists and academics to tell us, in less than 100 words, what the Attorney’s top human rights priority or initiative for 2012 should be. We’ll be sharing more of them with you in the coming days and weeks.
John Tobin is an Associate Professor at Melbourne Law School and a member of the HRLC Advisory Committee
The prioritisation of efforts to address human rights considerations is always fraught with danger. But the reality of limited resources means that prioritisation is a fact of political life. Given this reality, the top priority for the new Attorney General in 2012 must be ensuring the successful implementation of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. The requirement to scrutinize all new legislation in light of international human rights standards must not be reduced to a shallow process of compliance. Instead, the Attorney General must lead from the front and demonstrate that substantive engagement with international human rights standards leads to more effective and equitable legislative outcomes.
Lucy McKernan is Manager of Strategic Projects with the Public Interest Law Clearing House (Vic)
That a five year old girl can be lawfully refused admission to a government funded kindergarten on the basis of her parents’ same-sex relationship, is a disgrace. Even the Acting Bishop for the relevant Catholic diocese was ‘appalled’ by the discriminatory decision, yet Australian laws allow this form of discrimination by religious organisations.
Attorney-General Roxon should remove the blanket exceptions for religious organisations permitting them to discriminate on the grounds of sex and age. At the very least, the Attorney should prohibit discrimination by religious organisations in respect of their government funded functions and require greater transparency from organisations seeking to rely on the exceptions. Importantly, the Attorney should also show leadership by encouraging her State counterparts to follow suit.
Les Malezer is Co-Chair of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples
The priority for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples is to gain recognition and respect as first peoples, and acknowledgement and protection of Indigenous rights.
In 2012, the Attorney General must make the Human Rights Framework effective, leading cultural change across government. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples this includes giving the recommendations and reports of the Australian Human Rights Commission, including the ATSI Social Justice Commissioner, real authority, not just political lip service. The Government must implement and be accountable to reports on human rights by national and international authorities. There should also be a focus on judicial and legal education, to ensure legal professionals understand Indigenous rights and can properly and impartially resolve cases regarding those rights.
Lucy Adams is a Senior Lawyer with the PILCH Homeless Persons’ Legal Clinic
On census night in 2006, approximately 105,000 Australians were homeless, including approximately 7,480 families. Australia needs a human rights-based framework for addressing homelessness.
InVictoria, we have seen how legislative protection of human rights can work in practice through the Victorian Charter of Human Rights. The HPLC has relied on the Charter’s binding obligations on public bodies – to give proper consideration to human rights in decision-making and to act compatibly with human rights – to avoid the eviction of 42 people, including 21 children, from social housing into homelessness.
Enforceable human rights obligations, including national homelessness legislation that enshrines the right to adequate housing, are critical to Australia’s ability to effectively prevent and address homelessness.
Friday, December 16, 2011
A Human Rights Agenda for the new Attorney-General
Human Rights Law Centre | 15 December 2011
Australia’s new Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, was sworn in on 14 December 2011.
We asked some of Australia’s leading human rights advocates, activists and academics to tell us, in less than 100 words, what the Attorney’s top human rights priority or initiative for 2012 should be. We’ll be sharing more of them with you in the coming days and weeks.
Catherine Branson QC is President of the Australian Human Rights Commission
My hope is that the new Attorney-General’s priorities will include bringing along her fellow ministers and parliamentarians in making the new human rights scrutiny processes effective and seeing through the consolidation of federal discrimination laws process to create an effective national equality law. She should also ensure the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and establish a national system of monitoring places of detention. Finally, the Attorney must ensure that human rights considerations inform policy in all areas of her portfolio, for example in security policy where there is an urgent need for a system enabling review of adverse security assessments.
Nicolas Patrick is a Partner and Head of Pro Bono with DLA Piper
I would prioritise the human rights of people in places of detention. A significant proportion of Australia’s prison population suffer from mental illness. There is a causal and consequential link between imprisonment and mental illness. Australia is warehousing people with mental health problems in prisons, where mental health care is entirely inadequate.
The number of juveniles in detention is also a major concern, along with the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These issues raise significant concerns with respect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention against Torture, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and require the urgent attention of the Australian Government.
Professor David Kinley is Chair in Human Rights Law at Sydney Law School
Dear Attorney,
Pay very close attention to the newly established parliamentary human rights scrutiny committee. This is a sleeping giant, whose potential power and range is underappreciated; indeed largely unnoticed. Having authority to scrutinise all bills for compliance with all Australia’s international human rights obligations goes far beyond the scope of any equivalent mechanism overseas, and it will embarrass and expose. So, heads up for the enhanced human rights scrutiny of the next wave of immigration, anti-terrorism or workplace relations proposals.
PS. Don’t take up smoking this year.
Ed Santow is Chief Executive Officer of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Over the last few years, the Australian Government has made progress in improving the protection of our basic rights. However, Australia still lacks a comprehensive human rights law. This increases the vulnerability of already disadvantaged people — like Indigenous Australians, people experiencing homelessness and people with a disability. To rectify this, the new Attorney-General should take the lead in fully implementing the recommendations of the 2009 National Human Rights Consultation, including by enacting a comprehensive Human Rights Act.
Nicky Friedman is Head of Pro Bono & Community Programs with Allens Arthur Robinson
The new Attorney should ensure that asylum seekers can access and exercise their legal rights.
Since the High Court’s decision in M61, which confirmed that review by the courts is available to asylum seekers who are processed offshore, legal assistance providers have been hit with floods of applications for legal representation in judicial review proceedings. Despite the huge increase in demand, no extra funds have been provided and legal aid and community legal centres are turning away desperate people. The Attorney should provide funds to boost the capacity of refugee and immigration community legal centres and legal aid commissions to deal with these matters immediately.
Professor Sarah Joseph is Director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
There are many human rights priorities for Australiain 2012, such as properly implementing the new Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act and vastly improving this country’s impoverished refugee debate. As the number one priority, however, I would say that the Australian Government must take the lead in vigorously supporting amendment of the Australian Constitution to better recognise and protect the rights of Indigenous peoples, and to educate Australian people about the need for such amendment. A campaign against Constitutional recognition has already begun (see eg, J Albrechtsen inThe Australian on 14 December). The government and the opposition must get on the front foot to counter the scaremongering.
Australia’s new Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, was sworn in on 14 December 2011.
We asked some of Australia’s leading human rights advocates, activists and academics to tell us, in less than 100 words, what the Attorney’s top human rights priority or initiative for 2012 should be. We’ll be sharing more of them with you in the coming days and weeks.
Catherine Branson QC is President of the Australian Human Rights Commission
My hope is that the new Attorney-General’s priorities will include bringing along her fellow ministers and parliamentarians in making the new human rights scrutiny processes effective and seeing through the consolidation of federal discrimination laws process to create an effective national equality law. She should also ensure the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and establish a national system of monitoring places of detention. Finally, the Attorney must ensure that human rights considerations inform policy in all areas of her portfolio, for example in security policy where there is an urgent need for a system enabling review of adverse security assessments.
Nicolas Patrick is a Partner and Head of Pro Bono with DLA Piper
I would prioritise the human rights of people in places of detention. A significant proportion of Australia’s prison population suffer from mental illness. There is a causal and consequential link between imprisonment and mental illness. Australia is warehousing people with mental health problems in prisons, where mental health care is entirely inadequate.
The number of juveniles in detention is also a major concern, along with the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These issues raise significant concerns with respect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention against Torture, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and require the urgent attention of the Australian Government.
Professor David Kinley is Chair in Human Rights Law at Sydney Law School
Dear Attorney,
Pay very close attention to the newly established parliamentary human rights scrutiny committee. This is a sleeping giant, whose potential power and range is underappreciated; indeed largely unnoticed. Having authority to scrutinise all bills for compliance with all Australia’s international human rights obligations goes far beyond the scope of any equivalent mechanism overseas, and it will embarrass and expose. So, heads up for the enhanced human rights scrutiny of the next wave of immigration, anti-terrorism or workplace relations proposals.
PS. Don’t take up smoking this year.
Ed Santow is Chief Executive Officer of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre
Over the last few years, the Australian Government has made progress in improving the protection of our basic rights. However, Australia still lacks a comprehensive human rights law. This increases the vulnerability of already disadvantaged people — like Indigenous Australians, people experiencing homelessness and people with a disability. To rectify this, the new Attorney-General should take the lead in fully implementing the recommendations of the 2009 National Human Rights Consultation, including by enacting a comprehensive Human Rights Act.
Nicky Friedman is Head of Pro Bono & Community Programs with Allens Arthur Robinson
The new Attorney should ensure that asylum seekers can access and exercise their legal rights.
Since the High Court’s decision in M61, which confirmed that review by the courts is available to asylum seekers who are processed offshore, legal assistance providers have been hit with floods of applications for legal representation in judicial review proceedings. Despite the huge increase in demand, no extra funds have been provided and legal aid and community legal centres are turning away desperate people. The Attorney should provide funds to boost the capacity of refugee and immigration community legal centres and legal aid commissions to deal with these matters immediately.
Professor Sarah Joseph is Director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
There are many human rights priorities for Australiain 2012, such as properly implementing the new Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act and vastly improving this country’s impoverished refugee debate. As the number one priority, however, I would say that the Australian Government must take the lead in vigorously supporting amendment of the Australian Constitution to better recognise and protect the rights of Indigenous peoples, and to educate Australian people about the need for such amendment. A campaign against Constitutional recognition has already begun (see eg, J Albrechtsen inThe Australian on 14 December). The government and the opposition must get on the front foot to counter the scaremongering.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Plucked from poor villages, boys land in jail
Natalie O'Brien and Cosima Marriner | SMH | 6 November 2011
Homecoming ... Faisal Arysad's mother and grandmother await his return. Photo: Rebecca Henschke
FAISAL ARYSAD was 16 when he was offered a job as a kitchen hand on what he was told was a fishing boat. The offer of $500 was a fortune - almost one year's pay - for the boy who lived with his mother and grandmother in a dirt-poor fishing village in West Timor.
When passengers boarded the boat, he was told it was for a sightseeing tour of the surrounding islands. The next he knew, he told his lawyers, their boat was picked up by an Australian navy ship and he was put in detention, then jail.
''The people smugglers simply get naive people, and the youths fall into that category,'' said Faisal's Brisbane lawyer, David Svoboda.
Sent home ... Ako Lani, 16, back fishing on Roti Island. After six months in an Australian adult jail, he was led into court in manacles. Photo: Rebecca Henschke
''These kids sit in villages with no work. Recruiters walk into the village offering $500. They tell them they'll be met by a ship to pick these people up at their destination. When a ship rolls in and it's full of cannons it's really surprising. These kids are genuinely surprised it's the Australian navy.''
Despite Faisal telling Immigration officials he was 16, the federal police did not believe him. They gave him a widely discredited wrist X-ray test which estimated his age to be about 19. The police charged him with people smuggling and he was put in the Arthur Gorrie maximum-security jail in Brisbane, which houses paedophiles including Robert John Fardon and Brett Peter Cowan, the accused killer of Daniel Morcombe.
But eight months later the charges have been withdrawn after Mr Svoboda flew to Indonesia to gather proof of Faisal's age.
Homecoming ... Faisal Arysad's mother and grandmother await his return. Photo: Rebecca Henschke
FAISAL ARYSAD was 16 when he was offered a job as a kitchen hand on what he was told was a fishing boat. The offer of $500 was a fortune - almost one year's pay - for the boy who lived with his mother and grandmother in a dirt-poor fishing village in West Timor.
When passengers boarded the boat, he was told it was for a sightseeing tour of the surrounding islands. The next he knew, he told his lawyers, their boat was picked up by an Australian navy ship and he was put in detention, then jail.
''The people smugglers simply get naive people, and the youths fall into that category,'' said Faisal's Brisbane lawyer, David Svoboda.
Sent home ... Ako Lani, 16, back fishing on Roti Island. After six months in an Australian adult jail, he was led into court in manacles. Photo: Rebecca Henschke
''These kids sit in villages with no work. Recruiters walk into the village offering $500. They tell them they'll be met by a ship to pick these people up at their destination. When a ship rolls in and it's full of cannons it's really surprising. These kids are genuinely surprised it's the Australian navy.''
Despite Faisal telling Immigration officials he was 16, the federal police did not believe him. They gave him a widely discredited wrist X-ray test which estimated his age to be about 19. The police charged him with people smuggling and he was put in the Arthur Gorrie maximum-security jail in Brisbane, which houses paedophiles including Robert John Fardon and Brett Peter Cowan, the accused killer of Daniel Morcombe.
But eight months later the charges have been withdrawn after Mr Svoboda flew to Indonesia to gather proof of Faisal's age.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Why the Malaysia Solution failed
RN Saturday Extra | 3 September 2011
The Prime Minster Julia Gillard says that the High Court 'has rewritten the Migration Act' in ruling against the government's Malaysia Solution. The PM was particularly critical of Chief Justice Robert French, saying that he had made different rulings on the same law in the past.
She was referring to the Federal Court ruling of 2001 which allowed the then Howard government to send 433 Afghan refugees who were on board the MV Tampa to Nauru for processing. It was a move largely recognised as being the genesis of the Pacific Solution. We look back at that Federal Court decision and explore why it differed from the High Court's ruling on the so-called Malaysian Solution.
Listen to story including interview with Ben Saul, Professor of International Law at the Sydney Centre for International Law
Story Researcher and Producer: Laura Bailey
The Prime Minster Julia Gillard says that the High Court 'has rewritten the Migration Act' in ruling against the government's Malaysia Solution. The PM was particularly critical of Chief Justice Robert French, saying that he had made different rulings on the same law in the past.
She was referring to the Federal Court ruling of 2001 which allowed the then Howard government to send 433 Afghan refugees who were on board the MV Tampa to Nauru for processing. It was a move largely recognised as being the genesis of the Pacific Solution. We look back at that Federal Court decision and explore why it differed from the High Court's ruling on the so-called Malaysian Solution.
Listen to story including interview with Ben Saul, Professor of International Law at the Sydney Centre for International Law
Story Researcher and Producer: Laura Bailey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)