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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4344 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

At the end of World War II, Germany, which was absolutely prostrate-might I say rightly so for what it did in the war-would have had the highest proportion of refugees. Indeed, Australia ultimately took a large number of those refugees. I do not recall there being any queuejumpers then. It might have taken those people three, four, five or six years to get to the country they ultimately got to. Indeed, I am aware of people taking even longer than that in some cases. It is not an easy thing to do and there are lots of pitfalls and problems along the way.

Some of countries which are criticising us did not have a very good record then. After the war, a number of refugees in Europe-in fact, hundreds of thousands-were sent by the British and Americans back to the Soviet Union, where Stalin butchered them. Former Russians, some of whom had fought for the Germans, some of whom simply got caught up with the war, some of whom were Red Army prisoners of war contaminated by the west, according to Stalin, were executed when they went back to the Soviet Union. Indeed, the disbursement of some of those refugees by the allies and others left a lot to be desired. As I said, I spoke to immigration officials about a number of people in camps who have virtually no chance to get here because they are poor and are being put back because some people can afford to pay.

Ms Tucker made a couple of points about children in detention camps and unaccompanied minors. The Migration Act, which governs this situation, requires any person who arrives unlawfully in mainland Australia to be detained until granted a visa or removed. That law applies equally to adults and children. Mr Pratt has already spoken about some of the problems there and some of the attempts being made to help children. A principle which this country adheres to and which we have in our children's services act is that children are usually better off with their parents. Obviously, if they have relatives or someone else to look after them, they can be moved out.

Another factor Ms Tucker mentioned was the position of unaccompanied minors. I am advised that, as at 23 August, there were only three unaccompanied minors in immigration detention centres in Australia and that the government has already taken steps to move most unaccompanied minors from Woomera and Curtin to alternative places of detention, including foster care, and that has been done under special arrangements with the South Australian Department of Human Services. Of the three that remain in a detention centre, one is there in the care of adult relatives-not his or her parents, but relatives-and discussions are continuing over the participation of the other two in alternative detention arrangements in South Australia.

Unaccompanied minors have also been released on bridging visas into fostering arrangements where they have met the eligibility criteria for that. I am also advised that the department prioritises the processing of applications by unaccompanied minors. Where it is agreed by all parties, including the state welfare authorities, that the interests of an unaccompanied minor would be best met by removing the child from the facility, that is normally arranged and such decision have been made for most unaccompanied minors in detention. As I indicated, as at that date in August there were only three unaccompanied minors in detention in South Australia. I think that Ms Tucker might not be aware of a number of facts.

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