Australia’s
Catholic Bishops have consistently taught that, to be faithful to the values of
the Gospel, Christians must advocate more humane and compassionate treatment of
asylum seekers and refugees. In recent
times, pressure is mounting for changes in our national policies as the evidence
of inhumane treatment, psychological harm and abuses of human rights come to
light.
These
resources have been prepared to help you to undertake action to promote love,
compassion, mercy and hospitality as the fundamental values underpinning our
nation’s refugee policy.
Included
in these resources are:
If you are looking for more information, an
excellent resource for people in South-East Queensland is the BARC website where you will find a
comprehensive collection of information and resources on local refugee groups,
current issues, events and resources.
Much
discussion on the policy of mandatory and indefinite detention of asylum
seekers is currently taking place in Australia.
The Church in Australia has repeatedly
expressed disquiet about the treatment of asylum seekers and has urged changes
which support their human dignity.
As Federal politicians consider their position
on proposed changes to our refugee policy, it is appropriate that Christians
speak up in support of policies which are consistent with Gospel values.
The evidence that indefinite detention is very
harmful to asylum seekers is beginning to mount.
It would be valuable for you to contact your
Member of the House of Representatives and some or all of Queensland’s Senators
to urge them to support changes which promote and protect human dignity.
Contact details for all Members of Parliament
If you have any difficulty, please contact the
Commission’s Office (Ph (07) 3891 5911 or e-mail petercjpc@uq.net.au) and we will help you to find these contact details.
Below is
a short letter which will give you a guide:
I am greatly
concerned about the effects of mandatory, indefinite detention on asylum
seekers.
It is clear
to me that detention for very long periods causes serious psychological
damage. It is appalling to think that
our country, which has a proud record of defending human rights, should be
responsible for causing such damage to any human being, especially children.
In the
current debate on our national refugee policy, I strongly urge you to support
changes which protect and promote the human dignity of those who seek asylum in
Australia.
Please
support changes which end the practice of detaining men, women and children for
indefinite periods.
I am sure
that we can control entry into our country without subjecting people to
inhumane and detrimental practices.
Yours
sincerely
Myth 1: Petro Georgiou’s Private Member's Bills will end mandatory detention:
Fact: These Bills will not end
mandatory detention. Asylum seekers who
arrive without a visa will be detained for 90 days pending health and
identification checks. If the Federal Court decides that there is a risk of
absconding, or any security issues, then the court can determine longer periods
of detention. Mandatory detention would remain for people who have overstayed
their visas and are not asylum seekers. The Bills would end the system of
providing only three year temporary protection visas (TPV’s) to people who have
been found to be refugees.
Myth 2: Asylum seekers must be detained to stop them absconding:
Fact:: National and international research shows the levels of absconding to be very low. Melbourne’s Hotham Mission worked with more than 200 asylum seekers in the community during 2001-2003 (31% of which had been released from detention). No asylum seeker absconded. Studies in the UK and USA have shown similar results. For more information on this research go to www.hothammission.org.au .
Myth 3: If we soften mandatory detention policy we’ll be flooded by asylum seekers:
Fact: Asylum seekers have never flooded
Australia. In 2001 Australia received
6,341 asylum seekers by boat. This is
the highest number that has ever arrived in one year, and about half of
Australia’s annual quota for humanitarian and refugee visas. Because of Australia’s geographic isolation
and strict visa controls, it is highly unlikely that we will ever see large
numbers of asylum seekers. Mandatory
detention hasn’t been a significant deterrent to asylum seekers. It was introduced in 1992; and after that
time, due to international conflict the number of unauthorised arrivals rose
steadily until 2001. The flow of asylum
seekers abated due to changed conflict conditions in the region of origin,
increased surveillance and boat interception, and collaboration with the
Indonesian Government.
Myth 4: We need to limit court appeals to stop people staying in detention for years:
Fact:
In 1997, one Federal Court judge found that a decision by the Refugee Review
Tribunal “totally lacks logic, the Tribunal's decision as reached was so
unreasonable that no reasonable Tribunal could reach it. But sadly, that is not a ground of review.”
Subsequently in 2001, legislation was enacted to further restrict
grounds for court appeals. Under the
2001 amendments, asylum seekers could only appeal on a limited number of errors
of law, not on the substance of their asylum claim. Asylum seekers will be in
danger of being deported to persecution if access to court appeals is
restricted any further. The real
solution is to fix the problems in initial refugee assessment process.
Myth 5: The remaining asylum seekers in detention aren't genuine refugees:
Fact: Over the last two years, over 100 long-term failed asylum seekers were re-assessed and found to be genuine refugees after all. Some had spent 4 or 5 years in detention. Problems with Australia’s refugee assessment process include: lack of country information, inadequate training of decision makers and lack of power given to the courts to remedy wrong decisions. These problems can lead to genuine refugee claims being overlooked. In addition, Australia has no system to consider the legitimate protection needs of people who fall outside the narrow definition of a refugee. Included in this group are stateless people, and those who are from countries gripped by civil war. Detention centers are and psychologically damaging places to live. The fact that asylum seekers stay there is indicative of their strongly held belief that they’d be in danger if deported to their home country. The Edmund Rice Centre has researched what happens to failed asylum seekers deported from Australia. Their report found that 35 of 40 deported asylum seekers interviewed were living in dangerous circumstances immediately on arrival. Like the long-term detainees in detention, all had tried to convince Australian authorities that they would not be safe if deported.
Myth 6: Mandatory detention stops people
coming on visitor's visas to claim asylum:
Fact: Those who arrive by plane on a valid visa, and then claim asylum, are rarely detained. These asylum seekers are given a bridging visa and allowed to live in the community while their refugee claim is determined. There are currently around 8000 asylum seekers like this living in the Australian community. Only asylum seekers without valid passports and/or visas are detained. Most of these people are boat arrivals, but some come by plane.
Myth 7: Extra mental health staff in detention centres will help detainees:
Fact:: Recent research suggests that it is the detention centre environment itself that causes or exacerbates mental illness. Researchers from the NSW University School of Psychiatry studied a group of Iraqi refugees and calculated that mandatory detention, followed by temporary protection, was twice as destructive to the refugee’s mental health as the persecution they suffered in their homeland. Speaking to the ABC, psychiatrist Jon Jureidini said, "I think the detention environment drives people mad and you know we've got fairly substantial evidence of that now…I think we could move the whole college of psychiatrists into Baxter detention centre and people would not recover."
Sources:
Asylum Seeker Project - Hotham Mission (2003) Welfare Issues And Immigration Outcomes For Asylum Seekers On Bridging Visa E, www.hothammission.org.au
Refugee Council of Australia Fact Sheet 8 - http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/fact08.htm
Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs – www.immi.gov.au
Petro Georgiou MP, Member for Kooyong (2005) Private Member’s Bills - Legislation For An Act Of Compassion For People In Immigration Detention And Holders Of Temporary Protection Visas, And To Reform The Mandatory Detention System
Edmund Rice Centre report, ‘Deported to Danger’: http://www.erc.org.au/research/pdf/1096416029.pdf
Adele Horin ‘Driven Mad By Cruel Uncertainty’, 28 May, 2005, Sydney Morning Herald,
ABC ONLINE NEWS Tuesday, May 24, 2005 ‘Psychiatrists Criticise 'Piecemeal' Release Of Detainees’,
Mary O’Kane, 2003 Refugee and Asylum Seeker Issues in Australia. The Brotherhood of St Laurence
Moges Eshetu v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1997] 19 FCA (31January 1997)
WELCOME TO OUR
NAURU BOYS
Below is a brief account from the Fitzroy Learning Centre of the recent arrival in Melbourne of two refugees from Nauru. It emphasises that our efforts to promote compassionate treatment of asylum seekers and refugees do bring about change for the better in Australia:
Today , at short notice, we welcomed Ali and Aslam from Nauru. It was an amazing experience at the airport and reflects the turn around in the attitude of the Australian community.
Halinka, Dot( one of the Mums), Roland (a visitor from NSW who dropped in) , Michael Gordon and I were at the airport to welcome the boys with Flowers, koalas and an Aussie flag and a big sign” Welcome to Melbourne”. It was very emotional. Lots of hugs and tears.
A woman waiting for the plane in the lounge asked what was happening. When told that the boys had just arrived from Nauru after 4 years in detention, she asked “ Can I hug and welcome them too?” She started crying, other people asked what was happening and welcomed them as well. Then we were approached by an art project officer from North East Arnhem Land, “Wukun Wanambi is the oldest son of Mithili Wanambi clan leader and renowned painter. He would like to welcome them to Australia” So this wonderful man welcomed Ali and Aslam to Australia. More tears flowed and people stood up and watched.
We have come so far in turning public opinion around. This helps to keep us strong when we feel so worn out and hopeless with people who are still incarcerated
Go and see Wukun’s beautiful art works at the Niagra Gallery in Richmond.
The Case of George Andary
George Andary was born in Lebanon on 10 February 1963. His father emigrated to Australia in 1964 and George and his mother and 4 older siblings followed in 1967. All have settled in Australia and established themselves in Brisbane with families and businesses, forming a mutually supportive extended family with uncles, aunts and cousins.
George has
never left Australia since his arrival at the age of 4. He does not speak
Arabic fluently and cannot write it.
All other members of his family are now Australian citizens. His father was granted citizenship in 1969,
but George was not included as a child on his certificate. George’s mother was granted citizenship in
1985. George has an Australian
indigenous de facto wife, an Australian stepson born in 1991 and 3 natural
Australian children born in 1992, 2001 and 2002.
George was
sentenced to “a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more” (as defined by the Migration Act 1958 (“the Act”)) and
therefore is deemed to have a substantial criminal record (as it is defined
under the Act), which results in George not passing the “character test” (as it
is prescribed under the Act).
George has
convictions that involve stealing, entering with intent, receiving stolen
goods, possession of a prohibited drug and supplying, and driving under the
influence. While there is no condoning
these offences, George admits that they were done in the course of his drug
addiction and his prison terms were not necessarily substantial as is
reflective in his sentencing (fines, 6 months, 18 months imprisonment, one
year, 18 months suspended sentence…).
George
claims that he has never committed any crime of violence and has only supplied
drugs to friends to support his heroin addiction. He has also completely rehabilitated by way of his drug
addiction.
George
applied for Australian citizenship in 1985 but was refused because he was in
prison at the time his application was considered. He did not receive the letter advising him of the refusal and
that he could reapply after three years because the letter was sent to the
wrong prison. Furthermore, during and
after George’s previous incarcerations, he was never given any kind of warning
by DIMIA that, if he continued with his “bad conduct”, there was a possibility
of his visa being cancelled and he being deported.
George’s
“visa” was cancelled on 05.05.2001. On
02.11.2001, the Federal Court of Australia set this decision aside and George
was released into the community where he cared for his children for 8 months. George’s matter was remitted back to the
Minister for further consideration. A
new Notice of Intention to cancel was sent to George on 08.02.2002, accompanied
by a copy of the new Ministerial Direction No. 21. George was again detained and has remained in detention ever
since.
George
appealed to the Federal Court, where the Judge found that although the
Minister’s decision “may be seen as very harsh”, it was not manifestly
unreasonable. On appeal to the Full
Court, the appeal was dismissed, though the Judges found the Minister’s
treatment of the “Expectations of the Australian community” was “cause for
disquiet”. At paragraph 18 the Judges
stated: “We are inclined to think that
the Australian community might take a rather more lenient view of the appellant’s
position…”.
George lost
two to one in seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court. From this
Federal Court decision.
Since
George was placed in detention, his wife had grown more drug-dependant and
unable to cope with raising the four children.
The elder two children were consequently given to foster parents and the
younger two children were given to other foster parents. George saw the children once a fortnight and
telephoned the elder two children daily and the younger two children about
every second day, but the Department of Families tried to prevent contact with
his children.
A Family
Assessment Report prepared by an independent social worker, on request from the
children’s Special Representative in February, stated:
“It is clear that both boys (Robert and
Christopher) have a very strong relationship with their father. They both expressed a very strong hope that
he will be released from prison soon so that they can live with him.”
“If their father is deported they will be extremely
distressed for a long period of time”.
A second
independent social worker reported that George’s children have always been part
of the extended Andary family and continue to be so, and that the children are
"likely to suffer long term negative psychological effects should their
separation from their father be permanent.
The Lebanese Embassy has indicated orally that it would be a long and
difficult process to get the children into Lebanon, if at all.
George was
detained indefinitely from 2002 and suffered
greatly from being separated from his children who desire very much to
be with their father.
He was
convicted a few weeks after his 19th birthday with breaking an
entering and fined $150;
In 1984 he was
convicted and fined $150 for possession of a prohibited plant;
He left
home at the age of 19 and became a drug addict and his criminal history has
been associated with this drug use and in 1985 he was convicted of 2 counts of
supplying heroin and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, which was reduced
to 6 months on appeal.
In 1990 he
received a 2 year sentence for
receiving stolen cars and possession of drugs and was paroled after 1 year.
In 1997 he
was convicted of supplying heroin and received an18 month suspended sentence.
In 1998 he
was charged with entering premises with intent and as a result of his
conviction, he was sentenced to 18 months for breach of suspended sentence.
George
claims that he has never committed any crime of violence and has only supplied
drugs to friends to support his heroin addiction. He also has convictions for driving under the influence, the last
being in 1985 and the worst being with a blood alcohol content of .08
George was released from the Arthur Gorrie Immigration
Detention Unit into alternative detention under the care of his parents at
their home in Brisbane. He is able to
see his four children regularly and they are now back together with their mother.
George has appeared before the Refugee Review Tribunal
to put his case for protection. He
still faces deportation to the Lebanon and this will undoubtedly cause immense
harm to his children.
George’s immigration lawyer tells us that the outcome
of the Tribunal hearing cannot be predicted.
He has asked that letters of support for George be prepared by as many
people as possible.
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THESE LETTERS BE SENT TO THE IMMIGRATION LAWYER AND NOT TO THE MINISTER DIRECTLY.
Your letters should be forwarded to:
Clyde Cosentino
South Brisbane Immigration and Community Legal Service
Po Box 5143,
West End QLD 4101
(Phone 07 3846 3189; Fax: 07 3844 3073)
Below are some points George’s immigration lawyer suggests should be incorporated into your letter:The fact that George El-Andary has been living in Australia since 1967 when he arrived as a young child with his large family.
Please remember to send these letters to Clyde Cosentino at the address
above, but, of course, the letter itself should be addressed to the Minister:
Sen Amanda Vanstone
Minister for Immigration
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Kibre Mammo Kebede’s case is outlined by her immigration lawyer below:
·
Ms Kebede is a young woman from Ethiopia. Ms Kebede has
been present in Australia since 1998, when she first arrived as a student. She is a refugee claimant who is seeking
protection from the Australian Government.
Ms Kebede had previously made her claims of persecution under the 1951
Refugees Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) in Australia, for
reasons of imputed political opinion, based on her father’s previous political
background and her own small involvement as a supporter with the All Ethiopian
United Party (AEUP). Ms Kebede’s claim
that she would face persecution were she to return, based on these facts, was
refused both at the Department level and at the Refugee Review Tribunal.
·
Ms Kebede subsequently sought the Minister’s
intervention under s 417 of the Migration
Act 1958, asking the Minister to exercise his (as it was at the time)
discretion to substitute a more favourable visa for Ms Kebede on compassionate
and humanitarian grounds. On the 16
March 2004, the Ministerial Intervention’s Unit advised that the case had been
referred to the Minister under s 417 but that the Minister had decided not to
exercise her power in this case.
·
Subsequent to this response, a further submission was
sent to the Minister on the 6 May 2004, outlining new and additional
information that had arisen from the facts as mentioned above, pursuant to s
417 and s 48B Migration Act 1958
(which enables the Minister to exercise her power to waive the statutory bar
preventing a person from lodging a further protection visa application in
Australia after an initial refusal). The response from the Ministerial
Interventions Unit on the 21 June 2004, was that this matter would not be
referred onto the Minister for her consideration under s 48B.
·
On 3 August 2004, a further submission was forwarded to
the Minister via her office on the basis of new additional information that had
arisen (sexual and physical abuse at the hands of her ex-fiancé), and which was
significant in nature. In this
submission the Minister was asked to exercise her powers under s 417 and s 48B
of the Migration Act 1958 on the
basis of this new information. This new
information was never brought up at the Department level or at the Refugee
Review Tribunal. It was not information that was
presented to the Minister previously. This was so because Ms Kebede had been
the recipient of sickening sexual abuse at the hands of her fiance at the time,
who still presently works as a civil public servant (Engineer) in the capital
of Addis Ababa, and who has connections with certain persons within the
relevant enforcement agencies.
·
Ms Kebede has provided information that she was raped
by her fiancé in a house with at least one military person looking on. The nature of the rape was horrendous in its
telling. Ms Kebede further tells her
story of being taken by her ex-fiance and two military friends to a bridge and
then tied up. Ms Kebede recalls that
her ex-fiancee, as well as these same two military persons, together bound her
hands and then tied her hands to the bridge in Addis Ababa. She recalls that there were another two
military persons looking on. Ms Kebede
tells the story that she passed out while she was on the bridge and only
recalls waking up later on the ground off the bridge with her hands untied and
seeing two people standing over her.
She cannot recall any of the events that may have taken place on the
bridge.
·
Sexual abuse under any circumstance is a traumatic
experience. The facts of this rape and
sexual abuse that took place for Ms Kebede becomes even more significant in that
Ethiopia is a patriarchal society that shifts the blame on the woman rather
than blaming the man. Moreover,
relevant supporting material outlines the culture of serious and endemic sexual
abuse in Ethiopia and the very limited protection that women have with the
judicial and legal system there (See RRT decision, pp 7-9). Moreover, relevant
supporting material outlines the culture of sexual taboos that exist in
Ethiopia and the fact that a woman who has been sexually abused will be
ostracised, discriminated and made an outcast in a male dominated patriarchal
society, with very limited support provided to her by the legal and judicial
system (See RRT decision, pp 7-9)
·
Ms Kebede’s story is outlined and diagnosed in a social
worker’s report (the social worker has had 15 years experience working with
culturally diverse people), a clinical psychologist’s report (the psychologist
has had 20 years experience and has had extensive experience in assessing and
treating children and women who have been sexually abused), and a medical
report detailing signs consistent to sexual abuse. All reports conclude that, in their experience, sexual abuse has
taken place against Ms Kebede and that she is suffering as a result of this. The delay in providing this information at
the beginning of the making of her claims of persecution is explained in the
clinical psychologist’s report. Two
medical reports have also been provided for Ms Kebede as well.
·
On 24 September 2004, the Ministerial Intervention’s
Unit advised that the relevant “Guidelines” were not met for them to refer the
matter up to the Minister for consideration under s 48B. On the 11 February 2005, the Ministerial
Intervention’s Unit advised that the relevant “Guidelines” were not met for
them to refer the matter up to the Minister for consideration under s 417 as a further request. In the words of the Department, “The additional information provided, in
combination with the information provided previously, does not bring the case
within the Minister’s Guidelines.
Therefore, no further action will be taken in respect of this request.”
·
Ms Kebede was faced with the demand that she must
present a ticket for travel back to Ethiopia by 17 March 2005. Many people who heard the Commission’s
appeal on behalf of Kibre joined with us in writing letters of appeal to the
Minister for Immigration, Senator Vanstone, so that she could give proper
consideration to the facts of this case.
·
It is the view of well-qualified professionals who have
studied Ms Kebede’s case that she cannot return to Ethiopia as there is a very
real chance that her ex-fiance will “reclaim her” as his fiance, physically and
sexually abuse her again at his whim, and possibly retaliate (out of fear of
what she might say) by harming her, without being made accountable under an
inadequate Ethiopian justice system. There is also the added fear that Ms
Kebede will face the real prospect of being permanently ostracised from her
town and surrounding areas, as well as being severely discriminated against by
these same people due to cultural norms.
Ms Kebede may be forced to marry this man under Ethiopian law even if
her former fiance was taken to court (See RRT
decision, p 9)
·
It is significant
to note that Tribunal Member Ms R Macklin, in the Refugee Review Tribunal
decision, which found in favour of our client who was a young Ethiopian woman,
stated that there exists in Ethiopia a particular social group, within the
meaning of the Convention, comprised of “young women and girls”. There is a
distinct and recognisable group, whose distinguishing attributes and
characteristics exist independently of the manner in which they are
treated. Young women and girls in
Ethiopia are subjected to a range of human rights abuses, including sexual and
physical violence, against which the state authorities fail to provide adequate
or effective protection. The Tribunal Member found that this failure of the
state to protect young women and girls is for reason of their membership of
this group, because of a combination of cultural, religious and social factors
which govern the manner in which women and girls are perceived. The Tribunal Member found that evidence
clearly indicated, and that she was satisfied, that systematic discrimination
against women and girls, particularly victims of sexual abuse, is embedded in
legislation, social and religious practices, and, most notably under the
criminal law, where police “ignore” complaints, and even more significantly, where
a rapist can avoid prosecution by marrying the victim. The Tribunal Member, referring to relevant
country information, stated that such information indicated that women and
girls in Ethiopia are considered as not possessing the same social, legal and human
rights as men. They are treated
differently as a group. The protection
of the state, in certain circumstances, is “consciously withdrawn” from them. In these circumstances, the Tribunal Member
find that young women and girls in Ethiopia are a cognisable group, and that it
is as members of this group, that they are, in effect, denied protection by the
state in relation to sexual violence.
Kibre is still in Brisbane, three months after she was instructed to present an airline ticket for her return to Ethiopia. The Minister for Immigration, Senator Vanstone, has exercised her discretion to consider Kibre’s case and Kibre has been asked to undertake the necessary health and character checks. This is a very significant breakthrough. She has not been granted a visa as yet, but this situation gives us great hope that the Minister may overturn the Department’s original decision.
Your letters and prayers have made a difference in Kibre’s case! Kibre has asked that we pass on her heartfelt gratitude for your letters and prayers.
Please keep Kibre in your prayers. The power of our prayers will sustain her while she awaits the Minister’s decision.
We will advise you of any news when we hear from the
Minister.
The Case of
Mohanad Alkhousi (Hanad)
The
following is the story of Hannad, a Syrian man, who faces imminent
deportation. It is written by his wife,
Gail:
My name is Gail Duncan, I'm an Australian citizen and
I married my husband, Mohanad Alkhousi (Hanad), in Australia 3 years ago. We
have a 22-month old son.
The Immigration department wants to deport my husband
because they say he must leave the country to apply for a spouse visa. This
sounds quite simple but it is in fact quite complicated and will result in a
definite separation of our family for 2 years - without any contact, physical,
verbal or internet etc.
Hanad is Syrian and is wanted to serve in the Syrian
military, and hence has a one-year restriction on his passport, making it
impossible to travel to other countries to wait for a spouse visa (processing
time 18-24 months). His only option is Syria where he would be taken to
military jail from the airport then taken AWAY to military camp for 2 years. As
foreigners, we would not be allowed to speak to him or see him, as he would be
considered a spy and his life endangered. Neighbouring city, Beirut is an
option also but the processing time would be too long and his passport would
need renewing. With no Syrian embassy in Beirut he would then have to travel to
Syria and he would be in the same boat as if he went directly there. Beirut is
not really safe for him
at the moment of our family because of the
assassination of Rafik Hariri and the tensions against Syrians and westerners
there. On top of that, there is no Australian embassy in Syria and even if
there were, my! husband would not be allowed to enter a foreign embassy whilst
serving the military. This means a definite 3-4 year period before re-entering
the country.
My father has melanoma, heart failure, diabetes and is
extremely immobile and I really don't know how well he is going to be over that
time. Hanad is a big help to Mum who relies on him to do those heavy duty
chores that she just can't manage. Dad's health is deteriorating and I believe
the worry of our situation is contributing to that. Born and bred in Australia,
he lost both his mother and father before he was 7 years old and knows how
difficult it is. He does not want to see Zac lose his father. He is also
worried that if we do find a place to go, that he will be separated from his
daughter and grandson - his only family contacts. Dad's health is not good at
all - I don't want him to give up on life because of us. On top of that I have
just lost my second baby following the stress of the immigration problems - of
which doctors have confirmed. I really can't take any more and I'm very weary.
Although we have not found a country that would accept
our family, it would be extremely difficult to move anyway due to the huge
financial drain on us that has been caused by the Immigration Department
preventing my husband from working for the past 11 months. Compounding this is
the fact that Zac has had a medical condition since birth that requires the
ongoing medical treatment and management of his gastroenterologist. Even if we
could find a country to accept us, we would have difficulty finding medical
care and being able to afford that in a country where we have no entitlement
and no income source.
Hanad has studied electric engineering for 4 years and
is also a trained CNC Lazer operator with 3 years experience in Australia. He
is a hard worker and has put a lot into his job and into Australia, completing
several short training courses. I'm a primary school teacher with 10 years
experience. We are both skilled workers. Currently I am teaching a year two
class of twenty-five beautiful children who will soon also suffer the
consequences of this decision if the situation is not resolved. My husband is
now the major carer of our child, little Zac, and I work full-time to try to
pay off some of the debts we have accumulated due to Hanad's prevention from
work whilst I was on maternity leave. If Hanad has to leave I will in all
probability have to leave work to look after Zac and hence, rely on social
security. This is not fair to anyone, including taxpayers, and will place us in
an extremely precarious financial position. Even if we could find a place to go
to o! verseas, it will still leave my class "high and dry" which can
be quite disruptive to children - some of whom do not cope well with change.
This in turn will affect their behaviour and their families and hence will
affect other children in the playground and therefore their families. This is
not just about our family.
We have applied for intervention from Amanda Vanstone
but she has refused to intervene. My husband is now in Departure Status and he
is required to leave. His visa expires JUNE 15 . We want the immigration
department to let us apply for a spouse visa on-shore due to the significant
hardship of our case.
Please pray for Hanad and his family.
Please also write letters of support urgently, using
the information above, to Sen Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Immigration,
Parliament House, CANBERRA ACT 2600.
The Case of Vivian Alvarez-Solon
Four years ago, Vivian
Alvarez-Solon (aka Young) was wrongfully deported to the Phillipines by
Australian authorities and has lived in
a hospice for the dying until recently discovered by a concerted media investigation.
Vivian has refused to return to
Australia because she cannot obtain appropriate assurances about the support
she will receive from the Federal Government on her return.
Below is a statement from a coalition of Filipino
Australian Groups. It provides more
details about Vivian’s case and outlines those actions which they believe the
Federal Government should take.
The Filipino community in Brisbane has already put
into place various arrangements to provide voluntary support for Vivian on her
return to Australia.
They ask us to
contact the Prime Minister and urge him to provide Vivian with guarantees of
appropriate and adequate support so that she can return with confidence that
she will be treated justly. Below is
a letter to the Prime Minister from one of the members of the Filipino
Australian Coalition which you might use as a gide in writing your letter.
·
Use the information to write a letter to the Prime Minister urging him to
provide Vivian with appropriate guarantees so that she can return to Australia
The Prime Minister’s address is:
The Hon John Howard MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA
ACT 2600
As an alternative, you may e-mail your letter to the
Prime Minister via the office of Mrs Louise Markus, the Member for Greenway at louise.markus.mp@aph.gov.au
You may also wish to read some recent media articles
which report on the legal struggle being undertaken on Vivian’s behalf at:
Lawyer-calls-for-Alvarez-compassion June 15 2005
Deportee 'forced into litigation' June
17 2005
STATEMENT FROM A COALITION OF
COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS CONCERNING THE DEPORTATION OF VIVIAN ALVAREZ SOLON
YOUNG
24 MAY 2005
In a mad rush to deport Vivian Alvarez Solon Young, Immigration officers shunned a group of Filipino professionals in Brisbane from assisting her.
A Filipino social worker, Maria “Guing” Coop, who spoke with Vivian the day before her deportation in 2001, questioned the alleged illegality of Vivian’s status in Australia.
During the interview, Vivian told Ms Coop that she was married to an Australian man and had been living in Australia for a long time. But when Ms Coop telephoned the compliance section of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA – as it was then titled), to ask of the basis on which it was decided that Vivian was in the country illegally, the officer replied that there was no record of Vivian’s entry into Australia.
Dismayed, Ms Coop replied, “How do you think she came here, on a broomstick?”
During the three days while Vivian was detained in the Airport 85 Motel in Ascot, a group of Filipinos attempted to offer their professional assistance to Vivian. Amongst them was a doctor, a Roman Catholic priest, nun, social worker, and two registered nurses.
One of the nurses, Mayette Mackintosh, who was asked by the Philippines Consular Assistant to accompany her while she interviewed Vivian at the motel, witnessed Vivian having a seizure. Ms Mackintosh spoke with Vivian in her native tongue Cebuano. She recalled Vivian’s limited arm movement and her overall physical weakness.
After the seizure, Ms Mackintosh strongly suggested to an Immigration officer present that Vivian needed urgent medical attention. She was told that they will inform the Department about the situation and they will handle it. After Vivian was composed and seemingly all right, Ms Mackintosh and the Consular Assistant left the room.
The next day, the officers who were guarding the entrance to Vivian’s room told Ms Coop that arrangements had been made for Vivian to be looked after in the Philippines by a charity of the Mother Theresa Sisters.
How then could the Department of Immigration claim in 2005 that they did not know where to begin their search for Vivian?
The first hand accounts described above are significant testimony in a daily series of developments about Vivian Solon’s case of wrongful deportation since it was revealed by the media to the Australian public on May 4, 2005.
In the light of the emerging information about Vivian’s case, the Filipino community, friends, family and supporters in Australia demand:
· a fully public, independent and open inquiry into immigration detention and deportation or a Royal Commission;
· a review of section 189 of the 1958 Migration Act on the ‘detention of unlawful non-citizens’;
· a single centralised federal data system be put in place to register missing persons;
· the services involved in the chain of events that led to the deportation of Vivian Alvarez Solon Young be reviewed;
· all officers involved in assessing migrants and refugees to undergo cross-cultural sensitivity training; and
· where criminal liability be found in the way Vivian Alvarez Solon Young was treated, those persons responsible be called to account before the law.
Centre for Philippine
Concerns Australia (CPCA)
Melba Marginson, National Spokesperson
Dee Hunt and Emere Distor, CPCA-Brisbane
Maria Selga, Chairperson, CPCA-Victoria
Lulu
Respall-Turner, CPCA-ACT
Maria Barredo,
CPCA-Adelaide
Philippine
Cultural Awareness & Cultural Services, Inc. (PCACS)
Filipino-Australian
Community Services (FILACS)
Solidarity
Philippines Australia Network (SPAN)
Filipino
Women’s Working Party (FWWP)
For more information
contact:
Melba Marginson: 0418 389 135;
Maria Selga: 0408 766 890;
Lulu Respall-Turner: 0400 008 248;
Dee Hunt/Emere Distor: cpcabrisbane@cpcabrisbane.org
Sample Letter
June 8, 2005
The Hon John Howard MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Mr Howard
RE: VIVIAN ALVAREZ-SOLON a.k.a. YOUNG
I write as one of the coordinators of CPCA-Brisbane
Branch to express my concern about the delay of resettlement in Australia of
Vivian Alvarez-Solon, the Australian citizen deported to the Philippines in
2001.
The Centre for Philippine Concerns Australia is part
of a coalition of groups and individuals in Brisbane who have been preparing to
assist Ms Alvarez-Solon upon her return, but we are dismayed to learn that your
government is not facilitating a satisfactory resolution of this matter. In a
recent ABC interview with Ms Alvarez-Solon’s lawyer it was said, in effect,
that the Australian government does not want to commit itself to the level of
assistance being offered to Vivian and will not do so until she returns to
Australia.[i]
This is not a fair response. One cannot expect a
person who was wrongfully deported to then trust the same authority to make
amends without a written guarantee of restitution. It is not adequate to merely
offer her air fare back to Australia. Where is she to live? Will her
accommodation be suitable for wheelchair access and a live-in carer? Who will
care for her? What level of disability benefit will she receive? Is there a
guarantee that her brother in the Philippines can travel and reside with Vivian
as her carer and would he be granted a carer’s allowance?
If there are outstanding matters to do with
compensation, surely these can be dealt with after her return.
We have begun to mobilise volunteers and are ready
and willing to give what help we can to Vivian, but her housing and medical
needs, care assistance and disability income are government responsibilities to
which all its citizens are entitled.
Recent comments from Minister Vanstone implying that
Vivian and her lawyers are the ones responsible for her remaining in Manila,
appear to us as being nothing more than an attempt to shift the blame for this
situation onto the victim. Therefore, as Minister Vanstone has said she would
make no further comment to the press on this aspect of the case because, “the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet are handling those negotiations,”[ii]
I am writing to you for clarification of Vivian’s status and assurance that you
will progress her resettlement in Australia without delay.
Yours sincerely,
Dee Dicen Hunt
Coordinator,
Centre for Philippine Concerns-Australia, Brisbane
Branch.
Return to CJPC Home I CJPC Aslyum Seekers Page