DOCSLIB.ORG

Contract for Garrison and Welfare Services

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contract for Garrison and Welfare Services s47 s47 s22(1)(a)(ii) s22(1)(a)(ii) s22(1)(a)(ii) s22(1)(a)(ii) s22(1)(a)(ii) s22(1)(a)(ii) s22(1)(a)(ii) s22(1)(a)(ii) s22(1)(a)(ii) s22(1)(a)(ii) SCHEDULE 1 STATEMENT OF WORK 1 22946417 PART 1: NATURE OF THE SERVICES 1. General background and nature of services 1.1. Background 1.1.1. The Department requires the provision of garrison and welfare services outlined in this Schedule for the Residents and Personnel at Regional Processing Centres (RPCs), Settlement Sites, and Other Sites in Nauru. The Department has a key role in developing and implementing an appropriate and sustainable regional processing model (Regional Processing) as part of the regional solution to combat people smuggling (Operation Sovereign Borders). The model will support the government policy that all people arriving in Australia by boat will be transferred to a Regional Processing Country. This will include appropriate accommodation and services onsite. 1.1.2. The Department continues to design, develop and facilitate an efficient and effective model for infrastructure and services to support Regional Processing in the Republic of Nauru (Nauru). The focus is on an end to end process encompassing transfers, coordination and logistical services, governance, Regional Processing Centre (RPC) services, refugee determination assessment and review and outcomes, removals and returns and settlement in host countries. Host governments are responsible for in-country arrangements and operations with support being provided by the Australian government. 1.1.3. A key requirement for the Service Provider is achieving innovation and efficiency in service delivery and to enhance value for money for the Commonwealth. 1.1.4. Security infrastructure at each site exists with the intent to reduce the risk of damage from major disturbance such as occurred on 19 July 2013 in Nauru. The Service Provider is expected to put in place policies and procedures to support security enhancements and to minimise tensions at RPCs. 1.1.5. The parameters within which Regional Processing will operate include Australian and Host country legislation, Ministerial directions, Joint Agency Task Force (JATF) arrangements, Regional Resettlement Arrangement Memoranda of Understanding and Regional Resettlement Arrangement Administrative Arrangements. Australia’s international obligations, such as the United Nations Refugee Convention and Convention on the Rights of a Child, also provide parameters. 1.1.6. The longer term objective is to support Nauru to manage and administer the suite of Regional Processing activities with a view to them becoming increasingly independent in this regard. 1.1.7. In addition, the development of supporting infrastructure and services in Nauru will contribute to their nation building. Alignment with stakeholders’ expectations is therefore critical and an effective working relationship with the Government of Nauru (GoN) needs to be maintained. 1.1.8. RPCs accommodate individuals in accordance with the Minister’s direction under s 198AD(5) of the Migration Act 1958 of 29 July 2013. Nauru accommodates Single Adult Males (SAMs), families, Single Adult Females (SAFs) and 2 22946417 unaccompanied minors (UAMs) (where required) – this includes refugees, asylum seekers, and non-refugees. 1.1.9. Settlement Sites and Other Sites accommodate individuals who have been found to be refugees by the Government of Nauru. This includes SAMs, families, SAFs and UAMs (where required). 1.1.10. It is essential that services are able to scale up and down in an effective and timely manner to meet forecasted requirements. 1.1.11. Regional Processing is subject to significant scrutiny and the Service Provider is required to liaise with stakeholders and manage expectations effectively. 1.1.12. The Service Provider must perform the Services in a manner that is: a. adaptable to, and readily accommodates changes in Commonwealth policy during the term of the Contract to ensure that the Services are delivered in accordance with Commonwealth policy; b. appropriate to the individual needs of each Resident; and c. adaptable to and readily accommodates changes in Resident numbers (which may significantly increase or decrease during the term of the Contract). 1.2. Provision of works and services in Nauru 1.2.1. The Service Provider must hold all necessary local Nauru company registration and accreditation requirements to be able to carry on business in Nauru. 1.2.2. The Service Provider will provide Services that are the best available in the circumstances, and utilise facilities and Personnel on the Sites that, as far as possible (but recognising any unavoidable limitations deriving from the circumstances of the Sites), are broadly comparable with services available within the Australian community. 1.2.3. The Service Provider should note that the Australian Government is committed to promoting employment and training opportunities for local Nauruan people and businesses. 1.2.4. The Service Provider is required to identify and provide training and employment opportunities to local people and to demonstrate that best efforts have been undertaken to engage local contractors to the maximum extent possible within the parameters of the services. 1.3. Stakeholder management 1.3.1. The Service Provider will have significant stakeholder management and consultation requirements including with the Department and Nauruan government authorities. The Service Provider must adopt a collaborative approach to the complex stakeholder and governance issues. 3 22946417 PART 2: RPC RESIDENT WELFARE SERVICES 1. General 1.1. Overview 1.1.1. The Service Provider is required to provide and assist with a range of Resident Services at the RPCs, and facilitate and encourage Residents to access these Services. 1.1.2. These services include: a. Individual Management b. Programmes and activities c. Reception, transfer, discharge of Residents d. Property Management e. Communication Management 1.1.3. The Services are to be delivered by the Service Provider at the RPCs. Any reference to RPC or Site refers to the RPC Site. 1.1.4. All Service delivery decisions taken by the Service Provider will take account of the individual needs of Residents, and will aim to improve health, welfare and well-being outcomes for each Resident. 1.1.5. The Service Provider will provide a range of Services to promote the welfare and well-being of Residents and create an environment that supports security and safety at the Site. 1.1.6. The Service Provider is required to take reasonable steps to ensure that it and all its Personnel treat Residents equitably and fairly, with dignity and respect. 1.1.7. The Service Provider is required to focus on the well-being of each Resident and will make every effort to ensure visits from support groups are facilitated, while maintaining safety of all Residents. 1.1.8. The Service Provider will encourage interaction between Residents, where safe and appropriate. 1.1.9. The Service Provider will develop and facilitate activities to enhance the ongoing emotional and mental health of each Resident. 2. Individual Management 2.1. General 2.1.1. The Service Provider is required to: a. promote and maintain an environment conducive to the health and welfare of Residents where the needs of Residents are identified and responded to openly and with integrity; 4 22946417 b. establish processes to prevent Residents being subjected to illegal and anti- social behaviour and, where such behaviour becomes apparent, to deal with the issues cooperatively with the local authorities, the Department and other service providers; c. promote a culture in which Personnel interact with Residents on a regular basis in both formal and informal settings, developing trust and effective communication channels in undertaking their duties; d. take all reasonable steps to ensure all interaction between Personnel and Residents is conducted in a culturally appropriate manner; and e. ensure all interaction between Personnel and Residents is conducted in a professional manner. 2.2. Interaction with Residents 2.2.1. The Service Provider is required to implement and support: a. policies and procedures at the Site that promote high levels of positive and culturally sensitive interaction between Personnel and Residents to deliver a healthy environment and assist Residents to achieve greater self-sufficiency over their daily routine in preparation for settlement; b. policies and procedures that set out the standards and qualities the Service Provider expects of its Personnel when they interact with Residents, other service providers and stakeholders, including: i. Personnel being required to clearly identify themselves when communicating with Residents, other service providers and other stakeholders including wearing a name badge; and ii. supporting Personnel to develop communication skills to interact and communicate with Residents, other service providers and other stakeholders in a positive and effective manner. 2.2.2. The Service Provider must ensure that all Personnel: a. read, sign and understand the code of conduct and confidentiality forms provided by the Department before commencing duty at the Site; b. maintain regular contact with Residents; c. coordinate access by Residents to available Services; d. proactively manage issues relating to Residents as they arise and before they impact on the Resident's well-being or that of other Residents in the Site; and e. document and report any matters they consider material to the welfare of Residents in individual management plans and advise the Department. 2.2.3. The Service Provider must ensure that its Personnel do not provide any form of advice in relation to the visa status or other migration related matters of any Resident. The Service Provider should also ensure that their Personnel are 5 22946417 aware of government policies and that all communications with Residents are consistent with these policies. 2.3. Individual Management Plans 2.3.1. The Service Provider is required to develop and implement, and review Individual Management Plans for each Resident in line with Departmental Guidelines issued from time to time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Project Safecom News and Updates Thursday, 25 January 2018
    Project SafeCom News and Updates Thursday, 25 January 2018 Support us by making periodic donations: https://www.safecom.org.au/donate.htm 1. Parents demand Aung San Suu Kyi is cut from children’s book of role models 2. Sexual harassment and assault rife at United Nations, staff claim 3. Same-sex marriage sparks push for Australian bill of rights 4. Cate Blanchett urges Davos to give refugees more compassion 5. Australia's human rights record attacked in global report for 'serious shortcomings' 6. Declassified government documents: Refugee status reforms 7. Second group of Manus Island refugees depart for US under resettlement deal 8. Second group of refugees leave Manus bound for the United States 9. MEDIA RELEASE: Nauru refugees petition against delays and exclusion from the US 10. MEDIA RELEASE: Hunger strike over detention visit restrictions continues 11. Immigration detainees launch hunger strike 12. Malcolm Turnbull, Jacinda Ardern at odds over claim New Zealand is fuelling people smuggling 13. John Birmingham: There are votes in race-baiting and that's a stain on us all 14. Joumanah El Matrah: The feared other: Peter Dutton's and Australia's pathology around race 15. Labor lambasts Dutton for 'playing to the crowd' over Melbourne crime comments 16. Legal body says rule of law threatened after Dutton's criticism of judiciary 17. Greg Barns: Time to challenge the type of politics that plays the fear card 18. Dutton refuses Senate order to release details of refugee service contracts on Manus 19. Dutton's attacks on the judiciary are anything but conservative 20.
    [Show full text]
  • William Yekrop (Australia) *
    A/HRC/WGAD/2018/20 Advance edited version Distr.: General 20 June 2018 Original: English Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its eighty-first session, 17–26 April 2018 Opinion No. 20/2018 concerning William Yekrop (Australia) * 1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of the Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working Group’s mandate in its resolution 1997/50. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a three-year period in its resolution 33/30. 2. In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/36/38), on 22 December 2017 the Working Group transmitted to the Government of Australia a communication concerning William Yekrop. The Government replied to the communication on 21 February 2018. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 3. The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases: (a) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I); (b) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18,
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Primary Decision-Making Procedures Under the Migration Act 1958 and Migration Regulations 1994
    Chapter 3. Primary Decision-Making Procedures under the Migration Act 1958 and Migration Regulations 1994 This chapter will examine decision-making procedures for primary decisions and the role of policy in the Department and the Tribunals. This chapter also includes two appendices, outlining two significant new pieces of legislation – the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014 and the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014. Part 1 – Decision-making at the primary level Visa application procedures The reasons why the Migration Act 1958 was amended with effect from 1 September 1994 to set out a detailed ‘code of procedure’ rather than relying on the common law principles of natural justice were examined in Chapter 2. The ‘code of procedure’ for making primary (Departmental) decisions1 can be found in Part 2, Division 3, Subdivision AB of the Act. Subdivision AB consists of ss 51–64 of the Act, which are entitled as follows: 51A. Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule 52. Communication with Minister 54. Minister must have regard to all information in application 55. Further information may be given 56. Further information may be sought 57. Certain information must be given to applicant 58. Invitation to give further information or comments 59. Interviews 1 The Act usually refers to the ‘Minister’ as the decision maker. Subsection 496(1) provides that ‘[t]he Minister may, by writing signed by him or her, delegate to a person any of the Minister’s powers under this Act’. In practice, unless the Act specifically refers powers to the Minister personally, those powers are delegated to Departmental officers.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr IB and Mr IC V Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Home Affairs)
    Mr IB and Mr IC v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Home Affairs) [2019] AusHRC 129 © Australian Human Rights Commission 2019. The Australian Human Rights Commission encourages the dissemination and exchange of information presented in this publication. All material presented in this publication is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence, with the exception of: • photographs and images; • the Commission’s logo, any branding or trademarks; • content or material provided by third parties; and • where otherwise indicated. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. In essence, you are free to copy, communicate and adapt the publication, as long as you attribute the Australian Human Rights Commission and abide by the other licence terms. Please give attribution to: © Australian Human Rights Commission 2019. ISSN 1837-1183 Further information For further information about the Australian Human Rights Commission or copyright in this publication, please contact: Communications Unit Australian Human Rights Commission GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Telephone: (02) 9284 9600 Email: [email protected]. Design and layout Dancingirl Designs Printing Masterprint Pty Limited Mr IB and Mr IC v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Home Affairs) [2019] AusHRC 129 Report into arbitrary detention Australian Human Rights Commission 2019 Contents 1 Introduction 7 2 Summary of findings and recommendations 7 3 Background 8 3.1 Mr IB 8 3.2 Mr IC 9 3.3 Current
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Detention in Nauru
    Immigration Detention in Nauru March 2016 The Republic of Nauru, a tiny South Pacific island nation that has a total area of 21 square kilometres, is renowned for being one of the smallest countries in the world, having a devastated natural environment due to phosphate strip-mining, and operating a controversial offshore processing centre for Australia that has confined asylum seeking men, women, and children. Considered an Australian “client state” by observers, Nauru reported in 2015 that “the major source of revenue for the Government now comes from the operation of the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru.”1 Pointing to the numerous alleged abuses that have occurred to detainees on the island, a writer for the Guardian opined in October 2015 that the country had “become the symbol of the calculated cruelty, of the contradictions, and of the unsustainability of Australia’s $3bn offshore detention regime.”2 Nauru, which joined the United Nations in 1999, initially drew global attention for its migration policies when it finalised an extraterritorial cooperation deal with Australia to host an asylum seeker detention centre in 2001. This deal, which was inspired by U.S. efforts to interdict Haitian and Cuban asylum seekers in the Caribbean, was part of what later became known as Australia’s first “Pacific Solution” migrant deterrence policy, which involved intercepting and transferring asylum seekers arriving by sea—dubbed “irregular maritime arrivals” (IMAs)—to “offshore processing centres” in Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea.3 As part of this initial Pacific Solution, which lasted until 2008, the Nauru offshore processing centre was managed by the International Migration Organisation (IOM).
    [Show full text]
  • Imagereal Capture
    224 Australia’s Response to the Iraqi and Afghan Boat-People Volume 23(3) THE ‘TEMPORARY’ REFUGEES: AUSTRALIA’S LEGAL RESPONSE TO THE ARRIVAL OF IRAQI AND AFGHAN BOAT- PEOPLE HOSSEIN ESMAEILI* AND BELINDA WELLS** I. INTRODUCTION During the past year, over four thousand asylum seekers have travelled to Australia by boat, arriving without valid travel documents and seeking protection as refugees.* 1 The overwhelming majority of these new arrivals are from Iraq and Afghanistan.2 Typically, the final part of their travel to Australia has been facilitated by ‘people smugglers’ who operate from neighbouring South-East Asian countries, particularly Indonesia.3 The Australian Government has responded to these arrivals with a range of initiatives. Most controversially, it has created a two-tiered system of refugee protection: permanent protection visas are granted to those who apply for * LLB (Tehran) MA (TMU) LLM PhD (UNSW), Lecturer in Law, School of Law, University of New England. ** LLB (Adel) LLM (Lond), Lecturer in Law, School of Law, Flinders University of South Australia. The authors would like to thank the following people for their assistance during the research for this article: Robert Lachowicz, David Palmer, Tracy Ballantyne, Rohan Anderson, Stephen Wolfson, Marianne Dickie, John Eastwood, Des Hogan, Alistair Gee, Graham Thom, Shokoufeh Haghighat, Sam Berner and Michael Burnett. 1 “In 1999-00, 4 174 people arrived without authority on 75 Boats, compared with 920 on 42 Boats in 1998-9 (an increase of 354 per cent)”: Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“DIMA”), DIMA Fact Sheet 81: Unauthorised Arrivals by Air and Sea, 25 July 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Sovereign Borders
    BY HOOK OR BY CROOK AUSTRALIA'S ABUSE OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS AT SEA Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 7 million people who campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. All rights reserved. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced Cover photo: Photograph of the 32,000USD which crew members told Amnesty by any method without fee for advocacy, campaigning and teaching International was paid to them by Australian officials who intercepted and boarded the boat carrying 65 asylum seekers. The payment was made around purposes, but not for resale. 24 May 2015 as confirmed by eyewitnesses. The money was found in the possession of the crew when they were apprehended by the Indonesian Police. The copyright holders request that all such use be registered with © Amnesty International them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, or for reuse in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, prior written permission must be obtained from the publishers, and a fee may be payable. To request permission, or for any other inquiries, please contact [email protected] © Amnesty International 2015 First published in 2015 Index: ASA 12/2576/2015 by Amnesty International Ltd Original language: English Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Printed by Amnesty International, Street, London WC1X 0DW, UK International Secretariat, UK amnesty.org CONTENTS Executive Summary ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Pacific Solution Or a Pacific Nightmare?: the Difference Between Burden Shifting and Responsibility Sharing
    THE PACIFIC SOLUTION OR A PACIFIC NIGHTMARE?: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BURDEN SHIFTING AND RESPONSIBILITY SHARING Dr. Savitri Taylor* I. INTRODUCTION II. THE PACIFIC SOLUTION III. OFFSHORE PROCESSING CENTERS AND STATE RESPONSIBILITY IV. PACIFIC NIGHTMARES A. Nauru B. Papua New Guinea V. INTERPRETING NIGHTMARES VI. SPREADING NIGHTMARES VII. SHARING RESPONSIBILITY VIII. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION The guarantee that persons unable to enjoy human rights in their country of nationality, who seek asylum in other countries, will not be returned to the country from which they fled is a significant achievement of international efforts to validate the assertion that those rights truly are the “rights of man.” There are currently 145 states,1 including Australia, that are parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugees Convention)2 and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugees Protocol).3 The prohibition on refoulement is the key provision of the Refugees Convention. Article 33(1) of the Refugees Convention provides that no state party “shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner * Senior Lecturer, School of Law, La Trobe University, Victoria 3086, Australia. 1 As of February 1, 2004. 2 July 28, 1951, 1954 Austl. T. S. No. 5 (entered into force for Australia and generally on April 22, 1954). 3 January 31, 1967, 1973 Austl. T. S. No. 37 (entered into force generally on October 4, 1967, and for Australia on December 13, 1973). 2 ASIAN-PACIFIC LAW & POLICY JOURNAL; Vol. 6, Issue 1 (Winter
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion No. 74/2018 Concerning Ahmad Shalikhan (Australia) *
    A/HRC/WGAD/2018/74 Advance Edited Version Distr.: General 10 January 2018 Original: English Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its eighty-third session, 19–23 November 2018 Opinion No. 74/2018 concerning Ahmad Shalikhan (Australia) * 1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a three-year period in its resolution 33/30. 2. In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/36/38), on 30 July 2018 the Working Group transmitted to the Government of Australia a communication concerning Ahmad Shalikhan. The Government replied to the communication on 28 September 2018. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 3. The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases: (a) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I); (b) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles
    [Show full text]
  • A Human Rights Perspective on the Tampa Incident
    Washington International Law Journal Volume 12 Number 1 Symposium: Australia's Tampa Incident: The Convergence of International and Domestic Refugee and Maritime Law 1-1-2003 Trading in Human Misery: A Human Rights Perspective on the Tampa Incident Irene Khan Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Immigration Law Commons Recommended Citation Irene Khan, Trading in Human Misery: A Human Rights Perspective on the Tampa Incident, 12 Pac. Rim L & Pol'y J. 9 (2003). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol12/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington International Law Journal by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright 0 2003 Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal Association TRADING IN HUMAN MISERY: A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE ON THE TAMPA INCIDENT t Irene Khan Three years ago, while working for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, I witnessed hundreds of tired children, women, and men from Kosovo who spent the night in the open, at Blace, in freezing cold weather. They had been refused entry into Macedonia the night before, ostensibly because their sheer numbers constituted a threat to national security. I later learned that among those pushed back was a well-known political dissident, who was later shot dead by the Serbs on his return. In December 2001, as Secretary General of Amnesty International, I visited the Jalozai camp in Pakistan, where I met an Afghan woman named Zainab.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pacific Solution As Australia's Policy
    THE 3AC,F,C SOL8TI21 AS A8STRA/,A‘S P2/,CY TOWARDS ASYLUM SEEKER AND IRREGULAR MARITIME ARRIVALS (IMAS) IN THE JOHN HOWARD ERA Hardi Alunaza SD1, Ireng Maulana2 and Adityo Darmawan Sudagung3 1Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Tanjungpura Email: [email protected] 2 Political Sciences Iowa State University Email: [email protected] 3International Relations Department Universitas Tanjungpura Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT This research is attempted to answer the question of why John Howard used the Pacific Solution as Australian policy towards Asylum Seekers and Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAS). By using the descriptive method with a qualitative approach, the researchers took a specific interest in decision-making theory and sovereignty concept to analyze the phenomena. The policy governing the authority of the Australian Government in the face of the Asylum Seeker by applying multiple strategies to suppress and deter IMAs. The results of this research indicate that John Howard used Pacific Solution with emphasis on three important aspects. First, eliminating migration zone in Australia. Second, building cooperation with third countries in the South Pacific, namely Nauru and Papua New Guinea in shaping the center of IMAs defense. On the other hand, Howard also made some amendments to the Migration Act by reducing the rights of refugees. Immigrants who are seen as a factor of progress and development of the State Australia turned into a new dimension that threatens economic development, security, and socio-cultural. Keywords: Pacific Solution; asylum seeker; Irregular Maritime Arrivals ABSTRAK Tulisan ini disajikan untuk menjawab pertanyaan mengapa John Howard menggunakan The Pacific Solution sebagai kebijakan Australia terhadap Asylum Seeker dan Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs).
    [Show full text]
  • Part I: Chapter 2
    Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/83277 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation. Author: Berlo, P. van Title: Human rights elephants in an era of globalisation : commodification, crimmigration, and human rights in confinement Issue Date: 2020-01-21 PART I The elephant in the room Commodification & crimmigration as challenges to international human rights law accountability, effectiveness, and legitimacy 2 Bars with barcodes The commodification of confinement 2.1 INTRODUCTION Migration control and criminal justice are often conceived of as exercises of sovereign state power. Whereas criminal justice processes are considered to constitute ways for the state to sanction breaches of the ‘social contract’,1 migration control is considered to be a process by which states can regulate entry to the polity – and, potentially, to the social contract – in the first place. The idea that states are in charge of criminal justice and migration control as such is not revolutionary. It is, for example, common to speak about the sovereign state’s ‘monopoly’ of crime control.2 Likewise, the control of cross- border migration has to some extent always been within the ambit of sovereign power given that it is intrinsically based on notions of sovereign territory and borders that delineate the geographical spheres of influence of sovereign states.3 In turn, in addition to the use of other mechanisms, many states utilise migration control and criminal justice in attempting to provide domestic safety and security. Indeed, for the pursuit of safety and security, it has become reflexive to turn to the public authorities governing the territory in which one is residing.
    [Show full text]