Senator Andrew Bartlett
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
 
SENATE SITS, THEN STANDS UP

John Howard has said at least one true thing so far - the Government does not control the Senate.

I hope we can keep that way, but today showed nobody else controls the Senate either. After the Prime Minister cancelled the House of Reps sittings while leaving the senate to sit for two days, it became obvious pretty quickly what a farce that had generated.

Whilst there was legislation to debate, it was utterly pointless to debate anything that might need amending, as there was no House of Reps to send amended Legislation back to! This meant any amended Bill would have to be reintroduced afresh after the election anyway, even if the Libs win Government.

Question Time was even more pointless than usual, which is really saying something, leading pretty much everybody to wonder why we should keep going through a charade when the Government was clearly treating the whole thing with contempt.

So we ensured a Senate Committee was able to examine some aspects of the fresh information that had come out about the claims of children being thrown overboard, and then pulled up stumps. The Committee will probably hold one public hearing on Wednesday and leave the rest of its task until after the election as well.

As expected, despite the Senate contest being similar in importance, 95% of the media coverage was on the Prime Ministerial contest.

Still, I did have a kind word to say about the media today, noting the valuable action of giving a voice to some of the refugees who were amongst those who had been accused of throwing their children overboard. Giving them a chance to have a voice before that Senate Committee seems to be unfinished business to me.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, August 31, 2004 Permalink
|
Sunday, August 29, 2004
 
Election Day announced

I started the Sunday assuming I would spend Monday one of two different ways - either in the Senate as usual dealing with the various issues on the agenda there, or out on the campaign trail on the first full day of the election. Instead, I'll be doing both at once. It's a fairly transparent attempt by the Prime Minister to avoid scrutiny and further revealing of the truth whilst trying to appear not to be doing so.

However, there are always good things that can be achieved in the Senate - plenty of questions that need asking and a few good legislative actions that could happen. For example, there's some very unfair and big hikes in the visa fees which some aged parent migrants have to pay that I'd love to get the chance to overturn if possible. We'll have to see what happens.

Good to see some of the refugees from the "children kept-onboard" boat finally getting to tell their side of the story in the papers and on the TV this weekend. I guess a lot of the significance of this will be lost know the election has been called, as sadly attention will immediately shift elsewhere.

The sick irony is that the children of course did end up in the water when their boat sank, but this only happened because the Prime Minister insisted they not be rescued from their unseaworthy boat when it was intercepted by the Navy. This was a new approach from the Government to boats with refugees on them and of course put lives at much greater risk. It's amazing that after all this time, the fact that it was the Prime Minister that caused many children to end up in the ocean at risk of drowning seems not to be appreciated.

In what I guess could be seen as brilliant timing, the "Rock Against Howard" CD gets released into the record stores tomorrow. Tracks by 33 different contemporary Australian musical artists (plus a 16 year old song by one of my old bands), widely varying in style (and musical ability!) but united in their desire and belief that Australia would be better off without John Howard as Prime Minister (see www.rockagainsthoward.com)

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Sunday, August 29, 2004 Permalink
|
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
 
The Daintree

Meeting more refugee groups today and then flying out late - the good old red eye special - through to Brisbane and on up to Cairns.

The Daintree rainforest is at risk of clearing, but is also on the verge of finally being properly protected. I don't think most Australians realise that a big part of the Daintree is still not protected from clearing!

All the focus on Tasmania forest can be frustrating sometimes. The forests on Tasmania are important and beautiful, but the Daintree is just so much more valuable in terms of biodiversity (not to mention providing large numbers of existing jobs through tourism), yet the ongoing threats to the Daintree and the Wet Tropics are very serious and are largely being ignored. I hope it's not just me being a parochial Queenslander that makes me frustrated about this.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, August 18, 2004 Permalink
|
 
West Australian Democrats

Met with a large number of West Australian Democrat members in Perth. The huge surge in members in the West is very encouraging.

The news that the Democrats were in danger of being deregistered as a political party in the West has brought a huge number of people out of the woodwork, with our membership nearly doubling.

It's a great sign that people value the unique role that the Democrats play in making our democracy work better for everyone. People don't want the Democrats to disappear, but unless they vote for us, that's what will happen!

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, August 18, 2004 Permalink
|
 
Live Animal Export

Had the misfortune to see one of the huge sheep transport ships being loaded in Fremantle.

The Al Kuwait, back again for more thousands and thousands of victims. The case brought 18 months ago against a shipment for breaching the WA Animal Welfare Act still hasn't progressed, but the ships keep coming. I think the Al Kuwait was the ship involved on that occasion, but it still plying its cruel trade without penalty.

I stood outside the dock as a number of fully laden trucks drove in, jam packed with sheep. Each truck had more than one sheep caught down on the floor with others trampling all over it. Legs were sticking out the side of the trucks. Tragically, for all of these sheep, it is more comfortable than what is facing them on the long journey still ahead of them.

I see with surprise and pleasure that Cathy Freeman has done a photo shoot in Athens against the live animal export trade! There's a great photo of her on the web. Predictably, the live exporters are criticising her for expressing an opinion while the Olympics are on - apparently you're not allowed to express an opinion about any 'political' issue while a sports event is on!

I'm sure Governments would love a rule like that - they'd have sports carnivals all year round and slag off anyone who criticised anything as being killjoys!

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, August 18, 2004 Permalink
|
 
Albany WA & Refugees
In Perth at the moment - I'm actually spending more than 48 hours in the one place, which is a nice change.

Flew down to Albany last night with (Senator) Brian Greig to meet with the Hazara refugees and others in the local community who have welcomed them so well. I've been wanting to visit this town for a while, as the town is well known for having welcomed and valued the presence of the refugees in their community. About 50 people in a local hall, including a good number of the refugees, some of who I was able to meet before the meeting. A number of them now have permanent visas - the relief on their faces at finally having some control over their future is enormous. There's still lots of challenges ahead for them of course, but it's clearly many of them will be great Australians.

For many, reuniting with wives and children is the next difficult and emotional task. Temporary visas are deliberately designed to keep families separated, so it's only once they get a permanent visa that they can try to get back together with wives and children. One man I met hadn't seen his wife and child for five years!! Even more amazingly, he was still smiling. He had been in contact with them and they were busily tyring to learn English for when they might finally be able to come to Australia - it's likely to be some time yet, so more uncertainty for him and many others.

Albany was a pretty town. It was nice and cool and reminded me a lot of parts of Tasmania in its feel. A lovely harbour and beach, as well as some islands. Brian Greig tells me it was the final town which Australian troop ships left from when they sailed off to Gallipoli - the last glimpse of Australia for many.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Wednesday, August 18, 2004 Permalink
|
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
 
Political Process
I'm currently trying to think of ways to break through some of the limitations of our political process. Last Friday's High Court decision on mandatory detention seems to me to be a major watershed; something that provides a massive leap in Government power in that most basic of areas - the ability to deny someone their freedom.

I think most people presume that it is the job of Courts, not Government politicians, to decide whether or not people should be locked up and for how long. However, it is now beyond dispute that a Government can do this, as long as they can get a law passed that determines that the imprisonment is "administrative". They've already got such a law in the Migration Act, and there's no even greater temptation for them to try to get such powers in other laws, with the so-called anti-terrorism laws being the obvious area.

I don't think the ramifications of this are being appreciated. I guess people just think it's only one more decision in the seemingly endless fight between the Government and advocates in trying to get people out of long-term immigration detention.

Someone emailed me, taking me to task when they read my comment that our legislation allows the government to lock up people for the rest of their lives, people who have committed no crime, who have merely come to Australia seeking protection.

This person believed that those who are presently in detention are those who have come to our country seeking asylum, through means other than the correct channels…thus they are circumventing the processes of our laws. The Howard Government has put a lot of effort in over the years trying to make people believe it is a crime to arrive in Australia seeking asylum, so it's not surprise that people think this lie is true. I wrote out a response - hopefully a non-legalistic and non-judgemental one. It seems a reasonably summary of the situation, so I thought I might adapt it for here.

Some of the people who are in immigration detention did arrive here with a valid visa. Some people seek asylum (I.e. apply for a Protection Visa) at some stage after they have arrived in Australia. Others may have arrived with a valid visa which has subsequently expired or been cancelled and may not have sought asylum at any stage. This was not the case with Friday's High Court rulings, but the judgement affects everyone who is immigration detention, whatever their background.

Arriving in Australia without a valid visa and seeking asylum is not a crime. It is explicitly permitted under our Migration Act and of course many people have done so successfully and been released into the community. If it were illegal to do this, there would some form of charge and penalty for doing so - there is not. That is why immigration detention is called administrative detention. It is not a form of punishment, because if it was it would be a breach of our Constitution. Only the Courts can administer punishment for breaches of the law (this has been established by previous High Court rulings dealing with immigration detention).

There are of course other channels which people can use to apply for asylum to Australia from offshore. The practicality and reality is that this avenue is not available to many people because of their circumstances (such as no Embassy or relevant United Nations office in their country or region). Another important factor is that this process of seeking asylum does not operate in a manner equivalent to other visa applications to Australia. There is no queue or overt criteria (beyond meeting the criteria of refugee) which determines who is accepted or when. In any case, the main point is that it is not a breach of our law to seek asylum in Australia, regardless of whether you arrived here with a visa or not.

Even if arriving in Australia without a visa to seek asylum were a breach of the law, I think a potential life sentence, with only a Government Minister, rather than a Court, having the power to release you regardless of the circumstances, is completely unacceptable. Yet that is the effect of the High Court ruling!

The major case considered in the Court's judgement involved a person who is stateless (this fact is not disputed by anybody as far as I am aware). He applied for asylum in Australia but was rejected. However there is no country that will accept him. This has specifically been tested - the person has signed documents saying he is willing to be deported to any other country that will accept him. He signed such documents in August 2002. Despite his willingness to leave, the Australian Government (which is no slouch at deporting people) has been unable to find any country willing to receive him. What the Court's ruling quite literally means is that this person can be detained for the rest of their life if we are unable to find another country who will receive him and this can now occur without recourse to any court or judicial process.

I find it hard to believe that many Australians would accept potential life imprisonment of any person without any form of charge or trial, solely at the discretion of a Government Minister, regardless of what they may have allegedly done. Whilst this High Court decision is undoubtedly particularly bad for the person concerned, my bigger worry is that the High Court has now confirmed that there is apparently no underlying protection in our Constitution or international treaties we have adopted that can prevent a Government from imprisoning someone indefinitely without charge if they can get a law passed which characterises that imprisonment as "administrative". The Migration Act has already been found to be such a law. Some of the new anti-terrorism laws give such powers, but only for a defined time. However, the risk is now there that those sorts of laws could also be expanded in future to remove such time limits and leave such detention up to the discretion of a politician, such as now applies under the Migration Act. Still, at present, people suspected of terrorism have far greater protection against arbitrary imprisonment than stateless people who seek protection from persecution (or indeed even just a country that will allow them to live in it).

Time for a Bill of Rights in Australia. The politically driven obsession with attacking people who arrive here in boats has led our country to a stage where a basic, centuries old right - protection against arbitrary imprisonment without charge or trial - is now gone. Our Constitution does not protect us against this fate, neither can the Courts. Only the Parliament (that is, the Senate) can stop it being further eroded and only the Parliament can reverse the situation.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Tuesday, August 17, 2004 Permalink
|