DOCSLIB.ORG

Repatriation and the High Court Challenge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Repatriation and the High Court Challenge Chapter 6 The End of Operation Safe Haven: Repatriation and the High Court Challenge Introduction The Kosovars were returned to their homeland by the Australian government. Many went home without a choice and many without a home to go back to. The army barracks offered to house them began to close once the war ended in June 1999. The Immigration Minister detained Kosovars who refused to go home. Prime Minister John Howard was steadfast in his resolve to remove the Kosovars from Australian territory. Immigration staff at the barracks threat- ened to use tranquillisers against those refusing to comply. Philip Ruddock used legal powers to deny any further protection to the Kosovars. He had de- clared them unlawful non-citizens. To do this he used Safe Haven laws that contradicted Australia’s commitments to international law and human rights. The Safe Haven Visa scheme insulated Philip Ruddock from any checks on his powers. At any time he could expel Kosovar refugees, remove entire families and children against their will, and detain them without trial or re- view. Some of those who remained in Australia in early 2000 confronted these circumstances directly, presenting a challenge in the High Court to prevent their repatriation. Others evaded deportation by hiding from authorities, only caught as a result of surveillance operations conducted by the Department of Immigration for refugees on the run. The initial sentiment of generosity es- poused to Operation Safe Haven had long since faded along with the flashes of the news cameras. Chapter 5 is set out in three parts. The first part examines the closure of the Safe Havens and the repatriation of most Kosovar refugees between Ju- ly and the end of 1999. This section explores the rationale underpinning the Winter Reconstruction Allowance, a monetary incentive offered by the Feder- al Government to the refugees to leave Australia. It investigates the Immigra- tion Minister’s threats to detain the Kosovars, as well as the legal ramifications wherein the Safe Haven Visa program enabled sending the refugees home in the period immediately following the war. In the second part of this chapter I examine a range of issues facing Koso- vars still residing in Australia in the early months of 2000. The main focus is on the High Court challenge posed by some of the refugees to prevent their repa- © KoninklijkeBrillNV,Leiden,2018 | DOI10.1163/9789004344129_008 224 Chapter6 triation together with media representations of this episode. A secondary fo- cus is on the removal of Kosovar refugees by the Federal Government and the incarceration of those who continued to refuse to leave Australia voluntarily. This section also explores media coverage of the Department of Immigration’s “hunt” for refugees deemed “on the run”. The final part of this chapter elaborates on the circumstances facing Koso- var refugees once they returned home in early 2000. The main concern here is the extent to which the media supported both the Federal Government’s “tough” stance on repatriation, as well as the humanitarian concerns of the UNHCR. A Safe Return? The Closure of the Safe Havens and Tightening the Reins A peace agreement was reached between NATO and Yugoslavia on 9th June 1999, eleven weeks after the beginning of NATO air strikes against Serbian forces.1 The agreement was followed by the withdrawal of Serbian troops and the division of peacekeeping duties in the province between US, British, Ital- ian, German and French troops.2 Kosovo became a NATO protectorate and was directly administered by the UN until a formal declaration of independence from Serbia was announced in 2008. The withdrawal of Serbian troops and the rapid return of refugees from border camps generated an atmosphere of panic for thousands of ethnic Serbian Kosovars, many of whom fled to Belgrade in fear of reprisals by the KLA.3 Although systematic persecution had ceased, the security and economic situation of Kosovo was far from stable when the Australian government be- gan to repatriate ethnic Albanian refugees to the province in July 1999. By mid-July, the UNHCR regarded much of Kosovo safe for return. Canada and Germany had begun repatriating some Kosovar refugees on 9th July,4 while a total 628,000 had returned home in the month after the peace settlement.5 1 J. Miles, ‘PEACE SEALED; NATO and Serbs sign agreement on withdrawal’, The Daily Tele- graph (Afternoon Edition), 10th June 1999, p. 1 and p. 2. 2 See ‘Peacekeepers head for Kosovo’, The Daily Telegraph, 11th June 1999, pp. 34-35. 3 D. Williams, ‘Fearful Serb hordes jostle to flee Kosovo’, The Daily Telegraph, 20th June 1999, p. 53. 4 C. Ho, ‘Kosovar Refugees Turn Eyes On Home’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 10th July 1999, p. 13. This comprised about 5000 in Canada and 15,000 in Germany. 5 Ibid..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Canberra Hearing for Human Rights Talks
    MEDIA RELEASE Issued: 16 September 2011 PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Chair: Hon Laurie Ferguson MP Deputy: Hon Philip Ruddock MP Human Rights Sub Committee Canberra hearing for human rights talks The parliamentary Human Rights Sub-Committee is meeting with the Australian Bahá'í Community to discuss Australia’s human rights dialogues with China and Vietnam. “Australia’s human rights dialogue process is now well-established with 13 rounds of talks between Australia and China and eight between Australia and Vietnam since 1997,” Human Rights Sub-Committee chair Laurie Ferguson said. “This inquiry is a chance to examine the effectiveness of the dialogue process to date”. The focus of the Committee will be on: • parliamentary participation and oversight; • involvement of non-government organisations; • the roles and obligations of participating agencies; • reporting requirements and mechanisms; • the monitoring and evaluation of outcomes including an assessment of whether any human rights reforms within those countries have been obtained; • whether this dialogue mechanism should be adopted with other countries; • exploring options for alternative human rights mechanisms. Details of the public hearing are as follows: Tuesday, 20 September 2011 1.05 pm to 1.55 pm Committee Room 1R4 Parliament House, CANBERRA This hearing will be audio webcast live on: http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/ Members of the public are welcome to attend. For a program and more details, visit the Committee’s website: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/HRdialoguechinavietnam/index.htm There is still an opportunity to contribute to this inquiry as the Committee will continue to accept submissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Asylum Seekers and Australian Politics, 1996-2007
    ASYLUM SEEKERS AND AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, 1996-2007 Bette D. Wright, BA(Hons), MA(Int St) Discipline of Politics & International Studies (POLIS) School of History and Politics The University of Adelaide, South Australia A Thesis Presented to the School of History and Politics In the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Contents DECLARATION ................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. ii ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. v CHAPTER 1: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 1 Sovereignty, the nation-state and stateless people ............................................................. 1 Nationalism and Identity .................................................................................................. 11 Citizenship, Inclusion and Exclusion ............................................................................... 17 Justice and human rights .................................................................................................. 20 CHAPTER 2: REFUGEE ISSUES & THEORETICAL REFLECTIONS ......................... 30 Who
    [Show full text]
  • The Race Issue in Australia's 2001 Election
    The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Working Paper Series The Race Issue in Australia’s 2001 Election: A Creation of Politicians or the Press? By Paul Kelly Shorenstein Fellow, Spring 2002 Editor at Large, the Australian #2002-8 Copyright © 2002, President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved 1 The Origins of the Crisis In late August 2001, the routine journey across the Indian Ocean of a Norwegian freighter, the Tampa, would become a voyage from hell, with the Tampa itself transformed into a floating monument to inhumanity, the focus of an international political dispute, and a bitter symbol in Australia’s 2001 national election. The story of the Tampa is a modern morality tale: it documents the tragedy of refugee policy and global migrations – the conflict between asylum-seekers desperate to find a better life and the reluctance of citizenry of the rich stable democracies to embrace them. It also contains a powerful lesson for the press – and a warning of challenges to come. On August 26, the Tampa was traveling from the Australian port of Fremantle to Singapore. In response to an Australian search and rescue broadcast, it intercepted a stricken Indonesian vessel and took aboard 433 people, nearly all of them Afghans headed for Australia’s remote Christmas Island and what they hoped would be a new home in Australia itself. The pick-up occurred within the Indonesian rescue zone∗ and so the Tampa’s experienced captain, Arne Rinnan, set course for the port of Merak on the Indonesian island of Java 250 miles away, where permission to land had been given.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This PDF File
    GRIFFITH JOURNAL OF LAW & HUMAN DIGNITY GRIFFITH JOURNAL OF LAW & HUMAN DIGNITY Editor-in-Chief Leanne Mahly Executive Editors Vanessa Antal Mark Batakin Jacklin Molla Lisa Neubert Editors Gian Chung Ana-Catarina De Sousa Elizabeth Danaher Rebecca Durbin Jessica Farrell Charlotte Fitzgerald Danyon Jacobs Dillon Mahly Consulting Executive Editor Dr Allan Ardill Volume 6 Issue 2 2018 Published in February 2019, Gold Coast, Australia by the Griffith Journal of Law& Human Dignity ISSN: 2203-3114 CONTENTS THE HON MICHAEL BEYOND MARRIAGE EQUALITY & SKIN CURLING 1 KIRBY AC CMG SUZANNE BELTON, A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS FRAMEWORK SUPPORTING LAW REFORM ON 25 FELICITY GERRY QC & TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF VIRGINIA STULZ AUSTRALIA PETER KURTI WHY DIGNITY IS A POOR REASON TO LEGALISE ASSISTED SUICIDE 54 JULIAN MCKINLAY KING WEST PAPUA EXPOSED: AN ABANDONED NON-SELF-GOVERNING OR 70 WITH ANDREW JOHNSON TRUST TERRITORY JOY TWEMLOW MADE BY THEM, FOLLOWED BY US: CHALLENGING THE PERCEPTION OF 107 LAW THROUGH THE DECONSTRUCTION OF JURISPRUDENTIAL ASSUMPTIONS BEYOND MARRIAGE EQUALITY & SKIN CURLING* THE HON MICHAEL KIRBY AC CMG** December 2017 marked the culmination of a tedious process which lead to the enactment by the Australian federal Parliament of long overdue amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth). However, the anomalous approach in the form of a public postal vote that was employed in deciding whether a minority of citizens should be afforded equal civil rights to other citizens highlighted and exacerbated the vulnerability experienced by the very subjects it sought to redress. Nonetheless, in reminiscing about the significant changes that I have witnessed in my lifetime regarding alleviation of the uniquely hostile discrimination against LGBTIQ citizens is doubtless a step in the right direction and can make us optimistic about times to come, but also impatient to complete these changes in the hope that similar discrimination and injustices circumvented in times to come — and for generations to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Six Immigration Policy and the Separation of Powers Hon Philip Ruddock
    Chapter Six Immigration Policy and the Separation of Powers Hon Philip Ruddock, MHR I would like to thank The Samuel Griffith Society for the invitation to present this address, and I offer my congratulations to the Society for providing forums such as this one to facilitate discussion of constitutional issues, as I share its view that the Australian Constitution has served this nation well, and that we should strive to ensure that it continues to do so. I am pleased to have this opportunity to present – in the context of the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers – some of the major challenges that Australia is facing in relation to immigration issues, particularly with respect to the significant numbers of asylum seekers and unauthorised arrivals who have sought residence in Australia. To set the context for my address, I will start by outlining Australia’s migration and humanitarian policies and the factors that are putting pressure on these programs. I will then move on to discuss how the legislature and the Executive have responded to these pressures by taking practical steps to strengthen the integrity of Australia’s migration program and to allow Australia to continue to provide protection to people who are at greatest risk. In this regard, I will concentrate on the reforms that are of greatest interest to this forum, namely the legislative changes made in early October, 2001 to contain abuse of judicial review processes by unsuccessful visa applicants. Finally, I will discuss the role of the judiciary in giving effect to the Parliament’s response and its legislative intentions.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 May 2007 the Hon Philip Ruddock MP Attorney-General PO Box 6022 House of Representatives Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600
    3 May 2007 AP:CJ Alice Palmer (03) 9607 9381 [email protected] The Hon Philip Ruddock MP Attorney-General PO Box 6022 House of Representatives Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 By post and by email ([email protected]) Dear Mr Attorney UN Special Rapporteur Report on Australia’s human rights compliance while countering terrorism The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism has expressed many concerns about Australia’s human rights performance in his report, Australia: Study on Human Rights Compliance while Countering Terrorism (Special Rapporteur’s Report).1 The Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) urges you to take immediate action to remedy the breaches of human rights resulting from Australia’s counter-terrorism laws and practices. To this end, the LIV requests information from you on: • how the Government has responded to the Special Rapporteur and to the UN Human Rights Council; and • what the Government proposes to do to address the concerns raised in the Special Rapporteur’s Report. The Special Rapporteur’s Report was submitted to the UN Human Rights Council for consideration at the Council’s fourth session in March 2007. It is an authoritative document, which was prepared after consultation with the Australian Government and with the academic community and non-government organisations. As a report to a UN body, it is made available to the world and challenges Australia’s claim to the international community that we are a fair and decent society. The Special Rapporteur’s Report is balanced.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Chronicles Commonwealth of Australia
    Australian Journal of Politics and History: Volume 53, Number 2, 2007, pp. 281-336. Political Chronicles Commonwealth of Australia July to December 2006 JOHN WANNA Australian National University and Griffith University Howard’s Divisive Style Comes to the Fore: Never Recant, Never Stand-down, Gradually Give Ground Questioned in late 2006 over the wisdom of invading Iraq, Prime Minister John Howard insisted he did not agree with those who went about “recanting everything they supported when they were in positions of authority”. He argued that […] in public life you take a position, and I think particularly of the decisions I have taken in the time I have been prime minister. I have to live with the consequences of those both now and into the future. And if I ever develop reservations, I hope I would have the grace to keep them to myself, because I think you take a position and you have got to live by that and be judged by it (Australian, 22 November 2006). His message was simple: if he had any personal reservations about invading Iraq he was not about to admit it or to say sorry. By late 2006, the Iraq occupation increasingly overshadowed the internal politics of both the US and the UK, but in Australia the quagmire of Iraq was a far less potent political factor. As one of the original “coalition of the willing”, Howard was implicated in the decision but had far less at stake than the other leaders and no list of casualties to inflict political pain. Moreover, the Labor opposition had not managed to turn the unpopular war into a political positive for itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release the Hon
    PRESS RELEASE THE HON. TONY ABBOTT MP, LEADER OF THE FEDERAL COALITION A TEAM TO BUILD A STRONGER AUSTRALIA The incoming Coalition Government will restore strong, stable and accountable government to build a more prosperous Australia. This is the team that will scrap the carbon tax, end the waste, stop the boats, build the roads of the twenty first century and deliver the strong and dynamic economy that we need. First term governments are best served by Cabinets with extensive ministerial experience. Fifteen members of the incoming Cabinet have previous ministerial experience. The four members of Cabinet without ministerial experience have made significant contributions to the Shadow Ministry. The simplification of ministerial and departmental titles reflects my determination to run a “back to basics” government. The Australian people expect a government that is upfront, speaks plainly and does the essentials well. The Cabinet will be assisted by a strong team of ministers with proven capacity to implement the Government’s policies. Parliamentary secretaries will assist senior ministers and be under their direction. Good government requires a strong Coalition. As Deputy Prime Minister and as Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon Warren Truss MP will be responsible for ensuring the Government delivers on its major infrastructure commitments across Australia. Mr Jamie Briggs MP will be the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development with specific responsibility for roads and delivery of our election commitments across metropolitan and regional Australia. The Hon Julie Bishop MP will serve as Minister for Foreign Affairs and will be a strong voice for Australia during a time when Australia is a member of the United Nations Security Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Department Heads Under Howard
    The ‘New’ Old Broom – Andrew Metcalfe, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Andrew Metcalfe was plucked from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to head the Immigration department last year at the height of its troubles over the wrongful detention, or deportation, of citizens. In PM&C Metcalfe had been responsible for advice on the hot issues of counter-terrorism, security, defence and intelligence and was being tipped for promotion in this area. But the crisis in Immigration changed all that. Metcalfe, who had a long association with Immigration going back to 1981, and had gone to PM&C to get wider experience, became the obvious choice to head the troubled department. Over his 25 year career he has had stints in Immigration's interstate and overseas offices, its legal branch and as a Deputy Secretary, as well as a period as chief of staff for the previous Minister for Immigration, Philip Ruddock. Throughout last year, and on into this year, the department has had its many failings exposed in official inquiries. It has been accused of having a culture that is overly self-protective and defensive. Staff were said to lack training and understanding of the legislation covering their enforcement powers. Former Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Palmer, said in one of the reports into the department's activities that DIMIA, as it then was, operated without proper management oversight, with poor information systems and with no genuine quality assurance, or constraints on the exercise of its powers. Given his long involvement with the department, what does Metcalfe say about his role in the problems and the part the Government and the minister played in their development? ªI'd say that I think it's up to others to judge ultimately as to where culture comes from and what's good and what's bad,º he says.
    [Show full text]
  • Does History Matter?
    Introduction On 15 April 2009, the Australian Navy intercepted a boat carrying some 50 suspected asylum-seekers near Ashmore Reef, a group of three small uninhabited islands about halfway between the Australian mainland and the Indonesian island of Roti. In accordance with the government's policy, the boat was to be escorted to Christmas Island where the asylum-seekers were to be detained while security and health checks were carried out and their asylum claims processed. The next day, an explosion sank the boat, killed six of its passengers and badly injured dozens of others. The explosion was apparently caused when fuel that had been poured onto the deck, possibly to compel the Navy to take the boat's passengers to Australia, was accidentally ignited. The boat was the sixth so-called suspected illegal entry vessel (SIEV) to arrive in Australian waters since the beginning of the year.1 For several days, questions arising from the tragedy preoccupied politicians, journalists and the Australian public. Many of these questions were about possible parallels with events in 2001 after the Australian Government's refusal to let the Norwegian container ship Tampa land more than 400 asylum-seekers on Christmas Island (see Chapter 5). The perspectives of politicians and commentators were influenced by memories and histories of the Tampa affair and its aftermath. For example, the government's information management strategy was informed by an analysis of the `children overboard' affair of 2001, when the Liberal-National Coalition Government of
    [Show full text]
  • Nice Blokes Or Smug Thugs?
    Nice blokes or smug thugs? The Human Rights Commission’s report The Forgotten Children: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention was tabled in parliament two months ago. The 315-page report provided compelling first-hand evidence of the negative impact that prolonged immigration detention has on children’s mental and physical health. The report also made 16 recommendations. Since the report was tabled, there has been no substantive discussion in parliament about the report or its recommendations. Our Prime Minister has used all-too- common techniques to stifle debate – attack, shoot the messenger and then ignore the message. These silencing techniques have been effective – they have taken the focus away from an important issue that reflects on Australia’s standing in the world community: children in detention and our obligations under international law. Tony Abbott’s aggressive behaviour towards the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, has been named for what it was: bullying. No doubt, like me, other women have experienced this type of silencing behaviour. In response, Gillian Triggs remained composed and dignified. She is a role model for all of us at the receiving end of such attacks in both public and domestic places. When Tony Abbott was accused of bullying Gillian Triggs, several colleagues defended him. They described him as a “good bloke”. I don't know Tony Abbott but I know Tony Abbott Types (TATs). TATs are often described as “good blokes”. They are men who attended an exclusive private boys’ school. After school, they studied at a sandstone university, lived at an exclusive college and did the ‘right’ courses – law, commerce and medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 Correspondence
    Appendix 1 Correspondence The Hon Kevin Andrews MP Minister for Defence Rc!Crcnct.:: MC 15-000826 Chair Parliamentary Joint Committee on I Iuman Rights Sl.111 Parliament I louse CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Chair Thank you for your letter of 18 March 2015 drawing to my attention the Twentieth Report q/ !he -1-1'" Parliament of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on lluman Rights, concerning the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2015. Noting that the Bill requires the defendant to carry an evidential burden of proof with regard to the new exceptions, the Report queries whether the Bill is consistent with Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which protects the right of the defendant to be presumed innocent. The Biirs explanatory memorandum justifies these reversals on the grounds that the evidence that would need to be raised would either be solely within the detendanrs knowledge or it would be more reasonable, more practical and less burdensome for the defendant to establish the facts. Although the Committee agrees that this e.>..planation holds true in some circumstances, it has asked for my further advice as to whether the limitation is reasonable and proportionate to achieve the Bill's stated objective. While I acknowledge that the Bill does reverse the onus of proof for the introduced exceptions, these reversals are within reasonable limits, considering the importance of the Bill's objective, the lower standard of proof that the defendant bears, and that the defendant's right to a defence is maintained. The objective of the legislation, to stop proliferation-sensitive goods and technologies being used in conventional, chemical.
    [Show full text]