DOCSLIB.ORG

Official Committee Hansard

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Official Committee Hansard COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Official Committee Hansard JOINT COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION Reference: Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 WEDNESDAY, 24 MAY 2000 SYDNEY BY AUTHORITY OF THE PARLIAMENT INTERNET The Proof and Official Hansard transcripts of Senate committee hearings, some House of Representatives committee hearings and some joint committee hearings are available on the Internet. Some House of Representatives committees and some joint committees make available only Official Hansard transcripts. The Internet address is: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard JOINT COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION Wednesday, 24 May 2000 Members: Mrs Gallus (Chair), Senators Bartlett, Eggleston, McKiernan and Tierney and Mr Adams, Mr Baird, Mrs Irwin, Mrs May and Mr Ripoll Senators and members in attendance: Senators Bartlett, McKiernan and Tierney and Mrs Irwin Terms of reference for the inquiry: Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 WITNESSES BITEL, Mr David, President, Refugee Council of Australia; and Secretary-General, Australian Section, International Commission of Jurists..........................................................................................42 CONROY, Sister Loreto, Manager, National Program on Refugees and Displaced People, National Council of Churches in Australia.............................................................................................................56 GEE, Mr Alistair, National Refugee Team, Amnesty International Australia.......................................69 HARRIS, Ms Susan Gail, Education/Advocacy Officer, National Program on Refugees and Displaced People, National Council of Churches in Australia ................................................................56 HUTCHINGS, Mr Matthew, Lawyers Network, National Refugee Team, Amnesty International Australia ...................................................................................................................................................69 MISE, Mr Hitoshi, Regional Representative, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees..........83 MORTIMER, Miss Georgie Louise, National Refugee Team, Amnesty International Australia..........69 MURPHY, Reverend Father John, Director, Bishops Committee for Migrants and Refugees.............91 NADER, Hon. John, QC, Member, International Commission of Jurists..............................................42 NEVILLE, Dr Warwick, Research Department, Australian Catholic Bishops Conference..................91 SIDOTI, Mr Christopher Dominic, Human Rights Commissioner, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.........................................................................................................................29 THOM, Mr Graham Stephen, Refugee Convenor, National Refugee Team, Amnesty International Australia ...................................................................................................................................................69 WOLFSON, Mr Steven, Legal Officer, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ...................83 Wednesday, 24 May 2000 JOINT M 29 Committee met at 9.33 a.m. SIDOTI, Mr Christopher Dominic, Human Rights Commissioner, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ACTING CHAIR (Senator McKiernan)—I now open this public hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration to review the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. On 12 April 2000, the committee was asked by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to consider the bill and to report by the end of June 2000. The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on Tuesday, 14 March 2000. It amends the Migration Act to: give effect to the government’s policy intention of restricting access to judicial review in visa related matters by prohibiting class actions and limiting those persons who may commence and continue proceedings in the courts; clarify the scope of the minister’s power under section 501 to set aside a non-adverse section 501 decision and substitute an adverse decision; and rectify an omission which allows the consequential cancellation of a visa. The bill also corrects a number of misdescribed amendments of the act. The committee has received 22 submissions from individuals and organisations with an interest in these issues. Two further submissions have been made since the committee last met. Is it the wish of the committee that the submissions submitted by the International Commission of Jurists, Australian Section, and the Administrative Review Council be accepted as evidence to the inquiry and authorised for publication? If there is no objection, it is so ordered. The committee normally authorises submissions for publication and they are placed on the committee’s web site. If you would like further details about the review, please feel free to ask the committee staff here at the meeting. The committee will take evidence from witnesses as listed in the program. I now welcome the witness, Mr Sidoti, from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Although the committee does not require witnesses to give evidence under oath, you should understand that these hearings are legal proceedings of the parliament and warrant the same respect as proceedings of the parliament itself. Giving false and misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as a contempt of the parliament. Are there any corrections or amendments you would like to make to your submission? Mr Sidoti—No. ACTING CHAIR—The committee prefers that evidence be taken in public, but if you wish to give confidential evidence to the committee you may request that the hearings be held in camera and the committee will consider your particular request. Before we ask for questions from individual members of the committee, do you have a short opening statement you wish to make to the committee? Mr Sidoti—The bill before the committee at the moment needs to be considered in the context of legislation dealing with immigration over the last ten years. Although this bill is a small bill, unlike many of those that have come before the parliament during that period, it does represent a further step in a policy of tightening of procedures in dealing particularly with onshore asylum seekers that has characterised refugee policy in Australia now since 1989. For MIGRATION M 30 JOINT Wednesday, 24 May 2000 that reason, the bill needs to be considered within the broader context and not simply taken in isolation. In his second reading speech in relation to the bill, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, indicated that most of the initiatives in the bill: ... flow from the government’s stated policy to restrict access to judicial review in visa related matters ‘in all but exceptional circumstances’. The bill itself does not represent a direct tightening of judicial review provisions such as the bill currently before the Senate dealing with privative clauses, but it is certainly seen by the government, and should be seen by the committee and by the broader community, as part of the process of tightening that I have described. The principal issue, as far as we are concerned, with questions of tightening access to judicial review relates to the provision in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires that everyone has the right to a determination of rights by a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. For reasons set out in the commission’s submission in relation to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 [2000], which went before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, we do not consider that the Refugee Review Tribunal is sufficient of itself to meet the test required by article 14 of providing for a ‘fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal’. Under those circumstances, the protections offered by article 14 can only be guaranteed by appropriate determinations of rights by a judicial body, and that is the courts. For that reason, the commission has been concerned about issues of restricting access to the courts precisely because it would represent a denial of rights under article 14 of the ICCPR. The attachment that we made to our submission to this committee indicates the particular concerns we have about the current processes. The bill before the committee has two particular provisions that we would wish to draw attention to. The first relates to the prohibition of class actions. The bill provides that class actions should be prohibited before the Federal Court and the High Court in relation to immigration matters because, in the words of the minister, ‘of a concern with costs and incidence of migration litigation’. Of itself there is no direct right to a class action, but certainly there is a right to access the courts. To the extent to which the provision for class actions enables individuals to have access to the courts in an affordable and easy manner to assert their rights and have them determined, then class actions do have a relationship to human rights. The major concern, though, that I have with the move to prohibit class actions is one that relates to practicality. The minister, in his second reading speech, indicated that there had been 10 class actions that had been completed, and they involved 4,500 parties. There are currently four class actions before the courts involving another 3,000 parties, a total of 7,500 people. Clearly the courts would be unable
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Refugee Children's Consortium
    Refugee Children’s Consortium Kamena Dorling Co-chair, Refugee Children’s Consortium Coram Children’s Legal Centre 48 Mecklenburgh Square London WC1N 2QA James Brokenshire MP Immigration Minister 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF By email to: [email protected] 14 th July 2015 Dear Minister, I write on behalf of the Refugee Children’s Consortium (RCC), a group of NGOs working collaboratively to ensure that the rights and needs of refugee children are promoted and respected. Several of our members recently attended a meeting where plans for the future of assisted voluntary return programmes were shared and we understand that these plans will be put to you for approval. We wish to express our particular concern at the proposal to end funding for independent, impartial advice to individuals considering voluntary return to their country of origin. RCC member organisations work closely with children and young people who, for a variety of reasons, may wish to discuss the option of voluntary return and in most cases will feel confused and in need of specialist information and advice. Children who have entered the asylum system have expressed a fear of returning to their country of origin but may be missing family members or struggling to cope with the difference in systems and culture in the UK. In seeking assistance from an independent agency they are frequently helped to deal with their concerns and the ones who go on to make a decision to return will have done so with a trusted adult helping them think through their options. Unaccompanied children in the UK have no adult to exercise parental responsibility for them.
    [Show full text]
  • 4Ca57fe42.Pdf
    Contents INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 2 I. PRE -DEPARTURE : IDENTIFICATION , COUNSELLING AND ACTIVITIES IN PREPARATION FOR DEPARTURE .................................................................................................................. 3 1) Identification and selection process .................................................................... 3 a. Participation in the identification process with UNHCR ................................... 3 b. Counselling and assistance to refugees during the processing stage: Preparation of dossiers and interviews................................................................ 3 c. Assistance during the decision-making process: pre-screening of refugees, participation in identification missions ................................................................. 4 d. External referrals ............................................................................................. 5 2) After the eligibility decision.................................................................................. 5 a. Pre-Departure Cultural Orientation.................................................................. 5 b. Travel arrangements ....................................................................................... 6 II. POST -ARRIVAL : RECEPTION AND INTEGRATION ACTIVITIES ........................................ 7 1) Reception...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The EU's Role in Implementing the UN Global Compact on Refugees
    The EU’s Role in Implementing the UN Global Compact on Refugees Contained Mobility vs. International Protection Sergio Carrera and Roberto Cortinovis No. 2018-04, April 2019 Abstract The Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), adopted in December 2018 by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, expresses the political will of UN member states and relevant stakeholders to foster responsibility sharing for refugees and their host countries. Among GCR key objectives is that of expanding mobility and admission channels for people in search of international protection through resettlement and ‘complementary’ pathways of admission. The GCR provides a reference framework to critically assess European Union (EU) policies in relation to two main issues: first, the role and contribution of the EU and its Member States towards the implementation of the GCR in ways that are loyal to the Compact and EU Treaties guiding principles; second, and more specifically, the main gaps and contested issues of existing resettlement and complementary admission instruments for refugees and would-be refugees implemented at the EU and Member State levels. This paper argues that EU policies in the field of asylum and migration have been driven by a ‘contained mobility’ approach, which has been recently operationalised in the scope of EU third country arrangements like the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement. Under this approach, restrictive and selective mobility/admission arrangements for refugees have been progressively consolidated and used in exchange of, or as incentives for, third country commitments to EU readmission and expulsions policy. The paper concludes by recommending that the EU moves from an approach focused on ‘contained mobility’ towards one that places refugee’s rights and agency at the centre through facilitated resettlement and other complementary pathways driven by a fundamental rights and international protection rationale.
    [Show full text]
  • Refugee Community Organisations Working in Partnership: the Quest for Recognition
    Refugee Community Organisations working in partnership: The quest for recognition by Patricia Anne Jones A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Birmingham Business School College of Social Sciences University of Birmingham March 2010 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract This thesis was based on five multi-agency, urban Partnerships at the heart of the Accommodate Project: An initiative that set out to stimulate grassroots resolution to the problem of refugee housing, settlement and integration, at a time when large numbers of people were arriving seeking asylum in the UK. Refugee Community Organisations (RCOs) were engaged by the Housing Associations’ Charitable Trust (hact) to work alongside housing providers, local authority partners and others, for three years in five cities where refugees were struggling to find permanent housing. My original contribution to knowledge concerned study of the Partnerships from the perspective of organisations working with the most socially excluded, the RCOs. The Partnerships created a structure where power could be brokered.
    [Show full text]
  • Refugees Welcome? the Experience of New Refugees in the UK a Report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees
    Refugees Welcome? The Experience of New Refugees in the UK A report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees April 2017 This is not an official publication of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its committees. All-Party Parliamentary Groups are informal groups of Members of both Houses with a common interest in particular issues. The views expressed in this report are those of the inquiry panel only, acting in a personal capacity, based on the evidence they received and heard during the inquiry. The printing costs of the report were funded by the Barrow Cadbury Trust. Refugees Welcome? 2 Refugees Welcome? About the All Party About the inquiry Parliamentary Group This inquiry was carried out by a panel of Parliamentarians on behalf of the APPG on Refugees, with support provided by the Refugee Council. The panel consisted on Refugees of members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. They were: The All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees brings together Parliamentarians from all political parties with Thangam Debbonnaire MP (Labour) – an interest in refugees. The group’s mission is to provide Chair of the APPG on Refugees and the inquiry a forum for the discussion of issues relating to refugees, Lord David Alton (Crossbench) both in the UK and abroad, and to promote the welfare of refugees. David Burrowes MP (Conservative) Secretariat support is provided to the All Party Lord Alf Dubs (Labour) Parliamentary Group by the charity The Refugee Council. Paul Butler, the Bishop of Durham For more information about the All Party Parliamentary Group, Baroness Barbara Janke (Liberal Democrat) please contact [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Asylum Seekers and Refugees: What Are the Facts?
    Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services BACKGROUND NOTE Updated 14 January 2011 Asylum seekers and refugees: what are the facts? Janet Phillips Social Policy Section Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 What is the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee? ........................................................ 2 Are asylum seekers ‘illegals’? .................................................................................................................. 2 Are asylum seekers ‘queue jumpers’? ..................................................................................................... 4 Do most asylum seekers arrive by boat? ................................................................................................. 6 Do boat arrivals ‘bring disease’ and are they a threat to security? ......................................................... 7 Are boat arrivals ‘genuine refugees’? ...................................................................................................... 8 Do boat arrivals ‘take all Australia’s refugee places’? ............................................................................. 9 Do refugees receive higher welfare benefits than Australians? ............................................................ 10 Is Australia being ‘swamped by boat arrivals’? .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Official Committee Hansard
    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Official Committee Hansard JOINT COMMITTEE ON TREATIES Reference: Convention on the Status of Refugees MONDAY, 10 APRIL 2000 CANBERRA BY AUTHORITY OF THE PARLIAMENT INTERNET The Proof and Official Hansard transcripts of Senate committee hearings, some House of Representatives committee hearings and some joint committee hearings are available on the Internet. Some House of Representatives committees and some joint committees make available only Official Hansard transcripts. The Internet address is: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard JOINT COMMITTEE ON TREATIES Monday, 10 April 2000 Members: Mr Andrew Thomson (Chair), Senator Cooney (Deputy Chair), Senators Bartlett, Coonan, Ludwig, Mason, Schacht and Tchen and Mr Adams, Mr Baird, Mr Bartlett, Mr Byrne, Mrs Elson, Mr Hardgrave, Mrs De-Anne Kelly and Mr Wilkie Senators and members in attendance: Senators Bartlett, Cooney, Ludwig, Mason and Tchen and Mr Adams, Mr Baird, Mrs Elson and Mr Andrew Thomson Terms of reference for the inquiry: Convention on the Status of Refugees. WITNESSES BEDLINGTON, Ms Jenny, First Assistant Secretary, Refugee and Humanitarian Division, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.........................................................................................................................42 FROST, Ms Robyn Louise, Principal Legal Officer, Office of International Law, Attorney-General's Department......................................................................................................................................................................42
    [Show full text]
  • 'I Wished I Would Die'
    ‘I WISHED I WOULD DIE’ SYRIAN REFUGEES ARBITRARILY DETAINED ON TERRORISM- RELATED CHARGES AND TORTURED IN LEBANON Amnesty International is a movement of 10 million people which mobilizes the humanity in everyone and campaigns for change so we can all enjoy our human rights. Our vision is of a world where those in power keep their promises, respect international law and are held to account. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and individual donations. We believe that acting in solidarity and compassion with people everywhere can change our societies for the better. © Amnesty International 2021 Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons Cover photo: Syrian men, women and children have endured arbitrary detention, torture and unfair trial (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence. at the hands of the Lebanese security forces. Artist: Jawad Morad https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode © Amnesty International For more information please visit the permissions page on our website: www.amnesty.org Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty International this material is not subject to the Creative Commons licence. First published in 2021 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW, UK Index: MDE 18/3671/2021 Original language: English a mnesty.org CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 1. METHODOLOGY 8 2. BACKGROUND 10 2.1 SYRIAN REFUGEES IN LEBANON 10 2.2 THE BATTLES OF QUSAYR AND ARSAL 11 2.3 THE LEBANESE JUSTICE SYSTEM 12 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanctuary in Scotland Information on Refugee Issues for Faith Groups in Scotland
    Sanctuary in Scotland Information on refugee issues for faith groups in Scotland Around the globe the number of people who have been forced to leave their homes has never been greater. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates We bring together Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Interfaith (June 2020) that there are 79.5 million forcibly displaced people organisations who share a commitment to working together, worldwide requiring humanitarian protection. This is more than across barriers of religion, race, nationality and culture, for the at any time in the UNHCR’s 70-year history. common good. The number of refugees coming to Scotland in recent years has Scottish Faiths Action for Refugees has been working with been increasing. the Scottish Refugee Council, the Bridges Programmes and WEA Families have been resettled across the nation, from the central Scotland on a two-year project from 2018-2020 called the New belt to the highlands and islands, in cities, towns and villages. Scots Integration Programme. This project, part-funded by the European Union’s Asylum Migration and Integration Fund, has The response of local communities, of local authorities, of the sought to raise awareness of refugee integration issues among Scottish Government and of Scotland’s faith groups has been faith groups in Scotland. positive, but many people want to know more about the situation; why are there refugees coming here now? How can we help people, We are living through times of political, economic and social at home and overseas? uncertainty because of the UK’s withdrawal from the European In November 2015 the Church of Scotland established a refugee Union and the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • A Human Rights Education Resource on Refugees and Asylum
    TIME TO FLEE A human rights education resource on refugees and asylum For use with young people aged 11-16 www.amnesty.org.uk/education TEACHERS NOTES ABOUT THIS RESOURCE This lesson is suitable for young people aged 11-16 and will take approximately 1 hour. Aim To help students understand why people become asylum seekers and refugees, and the difficulties they face on arrival in another country. Resources required • Teacher information sheet – Suada’s story • Felt tip pens and large sheets of paper (per group) ACTIVITY 1 Why do people become refugees? (20 minutes) Students consider why people become refugees using facts and a case study. • Ask the students to write down their own definitions of - Persecution - Refugee - Asylum seeker Share, discuss and compare their definitions with the following: • Persecution Subjecting a person to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment because of who they are or what they think. • Refugee Someone who has left their own country because they are afraid of being persecuted (abused or mistreated) because of their religion, political beliefs or social behaviour. When you are given refugee status by another country you are allowed to live in that country, safe from harm. Many people consider themselves refugees, and are considered so by others, whether or not they have been officially recognised by the government of the country in which they are seeking asylum. • Asylum seeker A person who has come to another country asking the government to stay here as a refugee. They are waiting to hear whether they are allowed to stay or not. Ask the class questions about numbers of refugees and compare their ideas with the answers.
    [Show full text]
  • After the Storm: Learning from the EU Response to the Migration Crisis
    After the Storm LEARNING FROM THE EU RESPONSE TO THE MIGRATION CRISIS By Elizabeth Collett and Camille Le Coz MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE EUROPE After the Storm Learning from the EU response to the migration crisis By Elizabeth Collett and Camille Le Coz June 2018 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Migration Policy Institute Europe (MPI Europe) colleagues Jonathan Slagter for his excellent research assistance, and Lauren Shaw, Joe Boyle, Demetrios G. Papademetriou, and Natalia Banulescu-Bogdan for their invaluable comments and feed- back. They are also grateful to all of the interviewees from the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, Member States, international organisations, and civil-society organisations for their openness and willingness to share their insights. An earlier version of this report was commissioned by the General Secretariat of the Council to inform internal discussions with senior EU and national officials. Opinions and interpretations presented in this publication are solely those of MPI Europe and do not necessarily represent the positions or views of the European Union and its institutions. © 2018 Migration Policy Institute Europe. All Rights Reserved. Cover Design: April Siruno, MPI Layout: Sara Staedicke, MPI No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from Migration Policy Institute Europe. A full-text PDF of this document is available for free download from www.mpieurope.org. Information for reproducing excerpts from this publication can be found at www.migrationpolicy.org/about/copyright-policy. Inquiries can also be directed to [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The Long Term Integration of Gateway Protection Programme Refugees In
    The Long Term Integration of Gateway Protection Programme Refugees in Motherwell, North Lanarkshire Research Report by Duncan Sim and Kait Laughlin School of Media, Culture and Society, University of the West of Scotland Paisley Campus, PA1 2BE October 2014 1 Funded by the UWS-Oxfam Partnership 1 This report was funded by the UWS-Oxfam Partnership, however it does not necessarily reflect the views or policy of Oxfam Scotland and the contents are the sole responsibility of the authors. CONTENTS Acknowledgements Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 3 2. Researching the Gateway Protection Programme 7 3. Refugee Integration 12 4. Methodology 15 5. The Refugee Experience 17 6. Looking to the Longer Term 43 7. Conclusions: Measuring the Findings against the Humankind Index 46 Recommendations 56 References 58 Appendix: Copy of Questionnaire 60 The Long Term Integration of Gateway Protection Programme Refugees in Motherwell, North Lanarkshire ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded by the University of the West of Scotland-Oxfam Partnership and we are grateful for that support. Thanks go to North Lanarkshire Council, in particular Jonathan Smith, for providing background information, contact details for the refugee families and for facilitating the work. Thanks also to the former School of Social Sciences, now part of the new School of Media, Culture and Society, of the University of the West of Scotland for administrative support. For interpreting assistance with two of the interviews, our thanks go to Stephen Kaye of the University of Edinburgh And finally our thanks above all go to the refugee interviewees themselves. We hope that this research is of help to them as they continue to make a new life in a new country.
    [Show full text]