Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4334 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

If that is not bad enough, this federal government has also imposed unrealistic time restrictions on appealing these same decisions. Applicants can appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court only within 28 days-and within 35 days to the High Court. Compare this with civil and criminal law, where appeal rights are measured in years. It gets worse. Section 66 (4) of the Migration Act states:

Failure to give notification of a decision does not affect the validity of the decision.

Effectively, this means that, even if a person does not receive a notice, it will be deemed to have been received and that, if the time has lapsed for appeal, that is too bad. Finally, the processes of the tribunal are not public or transparent and it is an offence with a penalty of jail if information is made public.

This sounds more like a totalitarian state than Australia. I know of an elderly Chinese couple-Falun Gong practitioners, presently in Villawood-who are about to be deported. They are there because their appeal for a protection visa was refused, and then they missed the 28-day deadline, for all sorts of simple human reasons. They had already been detained and beaten in detention centres in China before they came to Australia. The man's brother-in-law was tortured to death in 2000 and his brother was sentenced to one year in a labour camp. Their son also lost his position in a local police station. Now we are to deport them, making them the first Falun Gong practitioners to be deported to China from any democratic country in the world.

The second part of my motion calls on the ACT government to develop a strategy which will enable the ACT to provide support for asylum seekers which does not involve detention and for this strategy to be brought back to the Assembly and, if supported, then forwarded to the federal government as a proposal for action. Whilst it is true, of course, that initial identity, health and security checks are necessary, asylum seekers can then be released into community care, as happens in countries such as New Zealand, Sweden and Canada, while claims are assessed.

Releasing asylum seekers into the community is more humane and less expensive. They could start learning English sooner, gain employment and support themselves, and their children could have normal lives. According to the Centre for Refugee Research, only 11 of more than 1,300 people who sought asylum in Australia in recent years were rejected on character grounds.

A United Nations High Commission for Human Rights delegation, led by Justice Bhagawati, visited Australia's detention centres early this year and urged the Australian government to undertake humane alternatives to ongoing detention. In their newfound enthusiasm for the United Nations, perhaps both major parties could take note of that recommendation.

Some women and children at Woomera have been released into the community. However, as I understand it, the model is oppressive and traumatic, as well as expensive, with guards and cameras being continually evident in this so-called community option. I am sure that this is not a model that the ACT government would support.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .