After a day of arguments over amendments to the Migration Act, the Gillard government remains at a political standstill on asylum seeker processing, with onshore processing currently the only viable refugee policy.
First Julia Gillard announced the Migration Act amendments the government was prepared to make in order to get the Coalition to approve them, in order to get around the High Court’s recent decision to rule offshore processing unlawful.
These amendments included assurances that offshore processing countries could not return asylum seekers to dangerous circumstances in their home countries, but these assurances did not have to be enshrined in law. Instead, it was reliant on the immigration minister acting in the “national interest” in picking countries for offshore processing.
“How can an obligation be an obligation if it’s not legally binding?” asked opposition leader Tony Abbott.
Unsurprisingly, Abbott then rejected Gillard’s amendments, saying the Coalition would only allow an amendement which insisted that asylum seekers in Australia were only sent to countries that are signatories of the United National Refugee Convention. Meaning, it would still be impossible for refugees to be sent to Malaysia — Gillard’s policy — but that they’d be able to be sent to Nauru — — a Coalition policy.
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen continued to rule out offshore processing on Nauru, instead declaring the government “would not be going down that road”.
As Jacqueline Maley wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald: “If question time is capable of having a vibe, then this one had a distinct ‘I’d sooner eat a bowlful of my own hair than agree to your amendments’ feel to it.”
If Abbott truly believes the Malaysia policy is a bad idea, then he needs to reject any amendment that would encourage it, says Nikki Savva in The Australian:
“Abbott’s critics claim he would be a hypocrite if he voted against the amendments. In fact, he would be a hypocrite if he voted for them. Any one of the issues he has nominated is ample justification, this time at least, to just say no.”
Does that signal a win for onshore processing? Bowen says yes: “Onshore processing is the current situation — in the absence of any agreement, we do that.”
Onshore processing has long been supported by the Labor Left faction, who yesterday called for the legislation to be redrafted as it claims it breaches Labor party platform. But Labor caucus is expected to vote against the Left’s plan today.
But the government will still attempt to pass the Migration Act amendments through parliament today even though it is a “doomed” policy, as Michelle Grattan writes in The Age, since even if it manages to pass the House of Representatives there’s no way it will pass the Coalition and Greens-controlled Senate.
The latest Newspoll has a low primary vote for the Labor Party but Gillard’s own popularity ratings are up, reflecting that Australians appreciate when their political leaders attempt to compromise on an issue. Not that a compromising is everything. “Gillard’s winning a negotiating war, but the fundamentals have not changed,” writes Dennis Shanahan in The Australian.
65 thoughts on “Deadlock over Malaysia policy”
Knack
September 21, 2011 at 3:36 pmPB;
really?
Would love to see example, so what your saying is that people have turned up, with a passport in a different name, with a different date of birth and they have kept their existing visa’s?
There loads of examples of people making minor amendments to dates of birth, or spelling errors in names, especially with electronic visa’s, or for that fact change of name due to divorce/marriage.
Also, you know that there were no further background checks conducted how?
Peter Ormonde
September 21, 2011 at 4:47 pmKnackers…
The numbers at the RRT speak for themselves … a 25% overturn rate does more than suggest DIAC officers say “no” a lot easier than they say “yes”. This process is anonymous and the refusing officer is not named. They should be.
As for the attitudes exhibited by those DIAC officials I’ve had personal contact with I’ll stand by my statement – they exude suspicion and hostility… they appear to see themselves as defending the country’s borders from a tidal wave of lying would-be migrants. It is one of the few government agencies in which individual officers will actually fabricate evidence or act on suspicion rather than fact. I have personal experience of both these circumstances.
As for migrants into PNG – that country barely has the financial capacity to look after its own problems. They need skills and talent but also it is not known as an open country willing to easily settle foreigners in large numbers. Skilled migration might make some sense in PNG but accepting and providing services for traumatised families is a bit of a stretch.
Another reason that people want to come here – especially from Afghanistan and Iraq is that we have contributed to making those places a hell-hole… aside from it being a safe and peaceful country, they actually think we care about them… after all we keep saying that when we send off our troops to help bring peace and democracy to their homelands. Sadly it appears that we don’t care enough to clean up afterwards.
Peter Ormonde
September 21, 2011 at 4:53 pmPhil E Buster:
“Hey Peter why don’t you do your bit and start making a few decisions instead of huffing and puffing about these people. The words you used to describe them are probably what they think of people like you.”
Not sure what you mean exactly… but I’ll try and respond:
I am paying them, they are acting “on my behalf” and in “my interests” … what they think of me is quite immaterial and of no consequence to me. I have repeatedly accused DIAC and individual officers of incompetence and bias… not all of them… just the 30 or so I have had personal dealings with.
Pray I never get to make decisions again PB – if it was up to me they’d be doing their assessments in Somalia, Pakistan and the like. Or they would be working in Pauline Hanson’s fish and chip palais.
Phillip Buster
September 22, 2011 at 1:10 amKnack – I’m sure an FOI request to some government department would bear that out. How many asylum seekers have changed their names since being granted visas. I certainly would not name my sources (and they are impeccable (as they still work for DIAC).
Knack
September 22, 2011 at 8:48 amPB;
yeah, uh, my understanding is that if a DIAC officer did that, they would be breaching the Act, possibly even criminally, so if you know DIAC officers that have these claims, they are actually obligated to report it.
And to be clear, i wasn’t asking for names, but clarification on what you are claiming, are we talking total changes, like for example, totally new name and DOB? or minor amendments?
Peter;
you are aware that DIAC regularly sends assessment teams to refugee camps?
Also, would appreciate an answer as to this question;
‘are you saying that DIAC/DIMA officers refused to accept the additional information? Its a two way street, if the applicant had the information, why did they not provide it in the first place?’
Peter Ormonde
September 22, 2011 at 9:11 amKnackers …
Yes I am aware of that … should be there permanently in my view but yes we do send teams to do assessments on site and that is a good thing. More please.
The cases I’ve been involved in where additional information was required have run like this: The application is refused. We find out why it is refused. We get the additional information that was actually required to overcome or clarify the officer’s concerns. .. then it’s off to the Tribunal. In short, they didn’t ask for new information, the easy option is just to issue a refusal and let the Tribunal sort it out. Which is what happens. Again and again.
This is not a process designed to assist refugee applications. It is a process designed to refuse them, to frustrate and even to intimidate them.
DIAC refers to applicants as “clients” but they are not treated like clients – people help their clients – they assist them and provide advice. That’s not what this is about at all. Certainly not from the other side of the desk.
Knack
September 22, 2011 at 9:23 amPeter;
im a little confused here, my experience with any immigration entity around the world is that if you have ANY pertinent information that you think may be in anyway, shape or form to be relevant to the decision making process, you provide it with the initial application. I am a little confused as to why you think its the responsibility of DIAC staff to coach or lead applicants in providing further information for their applications, thats what migration agents are for, and theres plenty who work pro bono for Asylum claims.
You your self say ‘We get the additional information that was actually required’, now im making an assumption here, but if you could get it then, you could have provided it in the first instance. Why wouldn’t you? You say you’ve been involved in numerous cases, did a pattern not become discernible as to the required documents for claims?
Knack
September 22, 2011 at 9:25 amoh and one more thing, your not going to hear me argue against any suggestion of the need for permanent processing teams off-shore, from an outside but associated perspective, i have been deeply troubled by the decisions of both Labor and Liberal Governments to continually reduce the off-shore presence of DIAC staff.
Peter Ormonde
September 22, 2011 at 9:29 amKnackers …
I’m not a Migration Agent. These people are often traumatised, deeply suspicious and afraid of authorities and have no idea what is actually required. English is invariably a second or third language if they have any at all.
It does not require a great shift in the training and processes to move from a refusal based model requiring external correction and intervention (through agents or the RRT) to one where DIAC officers actually assist applicants through the process and make it easier for them.
This now is how Centrelink and the ATO operate … 20 years ago this was far from the case and equally “unheard of”. It is about helping people access their legal rights and entitlements rather than looking for reasons to deny them.
Knack
September 22, 2011 at 9:47 amPeter;
we have already covered that you are not a Migration Agent, but that doesn’t change that there are migration agents that can and do assist in these instances, why you would not avail yourself of these services to better assist your friend in their applications prior to lodgement instead of railing against the evil of DIAC is beyond me.
Also, to clarify the role of a Migration Agent, ideally they are to be used to prepare the application to a state of decision readiness, not be dragged in half way through the process or after a refusal has been made, they are invariably extremely qualified to do this. But their job is made so much harder if they are not consulted in the first instance, which you could do as an intermediary. Give it a try.