Letter: To: Pat.Conaghan.MP@aph.gov.au, Subject: Detention of asylum seekers

Dear Mr Conaghan,

A Biloela family of refugees

M... Griffin has shown me your email reply, dated 5-8-2020, to his email of 27-7-2020 (Seven years too long).

I must take issue with you on several issues in your reply.

You make the point, on several occasions, that these people detained in onshore and off-shore detention facilities are illegal, have attempted to arrive in Australia illegally, or are attempting to subvert our immigration system. If what they have done is illegal can you please point out to me which law of the criminal code they have violated? Have any of these asylum seekers been charged with this crime? Have any of these asylum seekers been tried for this crime?

Refugees locked up indefinitely in Mantra Hotel Melbourne

Under international law (specifically the 1951 Refugee Convention) it is not illegal to seek asylum if one has a well founded fear of persecution. So, arriving in a leaky boat and claiming asylum is not illegal. I understand that Australia is a signatory to the Convention so it appears to me that it is the Australian Government that is acting illegally by refusing asylum to those in our detention system who are genuine refugees.

Under international law, immigration detention is supposed to be administrative and temporary, not punitive. I believe that this is the thrust of Mike Griffin's letter, that the continued detention of these people for seven years can be considered punitive. I despair that our laws descend into a state where punitive measures are considered normal, that everyone is considered to be a potential criminal trying to "flout" or "circumvent" the law, rather than trying to seek the justice in any particular situation.

You also state that refugees have the option to return to their own country. I think you will find that the reason they have been classified as refugees is because they cannot return to their own country.

Free Mantra refugees

You state that these people can choose to reside permanently in Nauru or PNG. I do not think that either of these countries is a safe place to reside. The Smart Traveller website does not make PNG out to be particularly safe. For people fleeing persecution it is not a viable option for most of them.

I have watched the evolution of Australia's asylum seeker policy over the past twenty years and it is as depressing as it is inhumane. International migration is an issue to be managed, not a problem to be solved. It does nobody any good to keep the people in our detention centres in a continuous state of punitive incarceration. We could save a lot of money and the LNP could gain a lot of kudos by finally taking responsibility for the situation and settling all these people into the community. Just do it quickly and quietly and move on to more important issues.

I would hate to be so cynical as to believe that the continued detention of vulnerable people was for political purposes.

Free refugees from Australian detention

Your claim that Australia has one of the most generous humanitarian programs in the world can not go unchallenged. While not wanting to denigrate the good work that is done in this area it is also true that foreign aid has been cut severely over the past seven years by the LNP federal government. While we accept less than 20,000 people through refugee migration per year it pales into insignificance to the four million displaced Syrians currently residing in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. Whatever good work we do is poisoned by the petty and vindictive way we treat asylum seekers who arrive by boat.

Some new thinking is required by you and your government to resolve this issue.

Regards,

Dr Peter XXXXX

VALLA

Fair go for Refugees

Letter to Pat Conaghan MP August 2020

Dear Mr Conaghan,

Thank you for your letter of 5^th August, in response to my letter of  27^th July. I am grateful to you for taking the time to reply.  

End off shore detention.

In your response, you repeatedly refer to the “illegal” actions of those seeking asylum in Australia, and assert that the government will decide who can be allowed to enter the country.

This is incorrect. Australia does not have the right to refuse entry to asylum seekers or refugees who enter Australia “ illegally” under international law. 

Australia is a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which it ratified in 1954. The Convention stipulates for refugees specific rights, including protection from penalties for illegal entry. As a signatory to the 1951 Convention, Australia is not permitted to treat refugees arriving illegally differently from those arriving legally. The 1951 Convention states:

The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum (introductory note, see further expression of provision under Article 31).

The Australian government’s treatment of asylum seekers and refugees who enter

End off shore detention.

Australia “illegally” is forbidden under other legal instruments. For example, the substantial non-criminal detention and associated harsh treatment of refugees transferred to Papua New Guinea and Nauru is in breach of Australia’s obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, on his official visit to Australia in November 2016, referred to asylum seekers and refugees in involuntary geographical and psychological confinement (although no longer in detention),determining that such treatment constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment according to international human rights law standards.

Under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. Australia was one of eight nations involved in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You state that these refugee and asylum seekers have other options that do not require them to be resettled in Australia, and cite returning to their country of origin, settling in PNG or Nauru, or taking up the US offer of resettlement.

Manus detention camp was deplorable.

In relation to country of origin, refugees are protected from refoulement under international law (Article 33, Refugees Convention, Article 3, CAT). The principle of non-refoulement forms an essential protection under international human rights, refugee, humanitarian and customary law. It prohibits States from transferring or removing individuals from their jurisdiction or effective control when there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be at risk of irreparable harm upon return, including persecution, torture, ill-treatment or other serious human rights violations. As the state party who transferred these individuals to PNG and Nauru, Australia is legally responsible for ensuring that recognised refugees DO NOT return to their country of origin, which includes refoulement by way of coercion.  There is ample evidence that points to the fact that refugees in PNG have been subjected to considerable coercion to persuade them to return to their country of origin. 

 As for residing permanently in PNG or Nauru, in order for local integration for

Justice for refugees

refugees to be an acceptable durable solution, conditions in these countries of asylum must meet minimum standards for local integration. As noted by UNHCR research, local integration as a durable solution typically combines three dimensions:

“Firstly, it is a legal process, whereby refugees attain a wider range of rights in the host state. Secondly, it is an economic process of establishing sustainable livelihoods and a standard of living comparable to the host community. Thirdly, it is a social and cultural process of adaptation and acceptance that enables the refugees to contribute to the social life of the host country and live without fear of discrimination”.

There is no evidence indicating that either Nauru or Papua New Guinea meets these minimum standards for local integration. On the contrary, the circumstances of refugees in these countries are of continuing concern to international human rights bodies.

In relation to resettlement in the US, certain refugees will not be eligible for US resettlement through a range of internal US resettlement criteria and procedures unrelated to an individual’s refugee status. There will evidently be a number who do not travel to the US for a range of reasons outside their control. These individuals remain Australia’s responsibility under international law.

Saturday demo in Coffs yesterday

More broadly, while the chance to rebuild their lives in the US is welcome, it is wholly absurd that another resettlement country has had to step in and provide international protection on Australia’s behalf when Australia has the capacity and legal obligation to do so. It also fails to uphold Australia’s part in international burden-sharing arrangements pertaining to refugee protection and resettlement worldwide. 

If any laws are being “circumvented” or “flouted”, it is these international laws, noted above, to which Australia is bound by its own ratification, which are being violated. Australia’s passage of national laws and policies in contravention of these instruments is not permissible under such treaties.

I note that Australia will not be filling their quota for resettlement this year due to COVID-19 and related processing and travel restrictions. Meanwhile, hundreds of genuine and recognised refugees remain offshore or are detained onshore; individuals that the international community universally regard as Australia’s responsibility. The solution is clear and is 7 years overdue. 

Yours sincerely,

M. Griffin

Valla Beach

Saturday demo in Coffs yesterday

Letters to PAT CONAGHAN MP Federal Member for Cowper

The Murugappan family

Dear Mr Conaghan,

It is not and has never been illegal to seek asylum in Australia, whether arriving by boat or plane.  Keeping people in indefinite detention is, however, illegal under our international obligations.
I understand what the official Government policy states, and that both major parties subscribe to it.  It is cruel and needless in my opinion.  The boats have been successfully turned back for many years now.  The option of New Zealand has been offered to our country over the last several years, and should immediately be accepted.

Whether the Tamil family needs protection is not the issue, they are a hard working decent family that were making their own way in a regional town that valued them, and need to be returned there.  Priya saw her family murdered before her eyes and she and her husband have good reason to fear for the safety of their family simply because of their ethnicity
.
Thank you very much for your reply, I really appreciate it. I just cant  agree with injustice.  Australia should not discard people as not worth giving assistance to simply because of a political ideal.  Kindness is underrated when we discuss our country's values.  As is true equality for all.
Yours faithfully,
Pat de Jong

On 30 July 2020, at 9:31 am, "Conaghan, Pat (MP)" <Pat.Conaghan.MP@aph.gov.au> wrote:

Dear Mrs de Jong,

Thanks for your email.

I understand you have had long-standing apprehensions regarding the treatment of asylum seekers. I appreciate your heart-felt concern for people who have been impacted by the Australian Government’s immigration policies.

As has been stated on many occasions by the Government, those who have tried to enter Australia illegally, trying to circumvent the process we have in place to assist genuine refugees, will never be allowed to stay here permanently.

I don't believe those who have tried reaching our shores by boat are cunning criminals, but I certainly believe those who provide the boats, who provide the opportunity as a 'viable' alternative to a legitimate refugee process, are the criminals. These criminals do not care about the human cost, they do not care for the safety of their 'cargo' and are waiting for any opportunity to recommence their activities. The last time people smugglers took this type of opportunity, people died. We do not want to see any more senseless deaths at sea. If that means our Government stays tough on border protection, then so be it.

In relation to the Murugappan family you refer to (the family on Christmas Island), both adults arrived in Australia as Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMA), having paid a people smuggler and arrived in Australia illegally by boat. After arriving separately in Australia, they met and married and had two children. Since 2012, the family’s claims to engage Australia’s protection obligations have been comprehensively assessed on a number of occasions by the Department of Home Affairs and various merits review bodies. The family has consistently been found not to be owed protection. Mr Murugappan was found not to engage Australia’s protection obligations in late 2012 and that decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal in 2013. Mrs Murugappan was found not to engage Australia’s protection obligations in 2016. The Immigration Assessment Authority affirmed that decision in 2017. These decisions have also been the subject of judicial review, including in the Federal Magistrates Court/Federal Circuit Court, appeal to the Full Federal Court and applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court. Each of these applications have been dismissed.

Our country has one of the most generous humanitarian programs in the world. We do more than most to assist and resettle genuine refugees in need of protection and will continue to do so.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Mr Conaghan,
It is not and has never been illegal to seek asylum in Australia, whether arriving by boat or plane.  Keeping people in indefinite detention is, however, illegal under our international obligations.
I understand what the official Government policy states, and that both major parties subscribe to it.  It is cruel and needless in my opinion.  The boats have been successfully turned back for many years now.  The option of New Zealand has been offered to our country over the last several years, and should immediately be accepted.
Whether the Tamil family needs protection is not the issue, they are a hard working decent family that were making their own way in a regional town that valued them, and need to be returned there.  Priya saw her family murdered before her eyes and she and her husband have good reason to fear for the safety of their family simply because of their ethnicity
.
Thank you very much for your reply, I really appreciate it. I just cant  agree with injustice.  Australia should not discard people as not worth giving assistance to simply because of a political ideal.  Kindness is underrated when we discuss our country's values.  As is true equality for all.
Yours faithfully,
Pat de Jong

Dear Mrs de Jong,

Thanks for your email.

I understand you have had long-standing apprehensions regarding the treatment of asylum seekers. I appreciate your heart-felt concern for people who have been impacted by the Australian Government’s immigration policies.

As has been stated on many occasions by the Government, those who have tried to enter Australia illegally, trying to circumvent the process we have in place to assist genuine refugees, will never be allowed to stay here permanently.

I don't believe those who have tried reaching our shores by boat are cunning criminals, but I certainly believe those who provide the boats, who provide the opportunity as a 'viable' alternative to a legitimate refugee process, are the criminals. These criminals do not care about the human cost, they do not care for the safety of their 'cargo' and are waiting for any opportunity to recommence their activities. The last time people smugglers took this type of opportunity, people died. We do not want to see any more senseless deaths at sea. If that means our Government stays tough on border protection, then so be it.

In relation to the Murugappan family you refer to (the family on Christmas Island), both adults arrived in Australia as Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMA), having paid a people smuggler and arrived in Australia illegally by boat. After arriving separately in Australia, they met and married and had two children. Since 2012, the family’s claims to engage Australia’s protection obligations have been comprehensively assessed on a number of occasions by the Department of Home Affairs and various merits review bodies. The family has consistently been found not to be owed protection. Mr Murugappan was found not to engage Australia’s protection obligations in late 2012 and that decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal in 2013. Mrs Murugappan was found not to engage Australia’s protection obligations in 2016. The Immigration Assessment Authority affirmed that decision in 2017. These decisions have also been the subject of judicial review, including in the Federal Magistrates Court/Federal Circuit Court, appeal to the Full Federal Court and applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court. Each of these applications have been dismissed.

Our country has one of the most generous humanitarian programs in the world. We do more than most to assist and resettle genuine refugees in need of protection and will continue to do so.

Yours sincerely,

PAT CONAGHAN MP

Federal Member for Cowper

Dear Mr Conaghan,

I am writing to you as my local representative because it has distressed me for years now that refugees have been imprisoned and left without any certainty of a normal future life in society. Every one of them has fled persecution, whether called by our country a 'refugee' or asylum seeker. Only desperate people risk their lives in leaky boats, not cunning criminals as one or two politicians have described them.

Please do your utmost to have all of them, either offshore or here locked up from Christmas Island (the Biloela family) to mainland cities, released into society. You can be assured that there are many many organisations prepared to care for all of them. It has been so utterly cruel and immoral what Australia has and still is doing.

Thank you also for your advocacy concerning a decent amount for our unemployed to live on.

By the way, millions of dollars,hundreds of millions, will be saved by doing this. Just read about what Peter Dutton has showered various companies(e.g. Paladin) with in return for 'guarding' the refugees.

Regards,

Pat de Jong.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pay Dr Jong
Sent: Saturday, 25 July 2020 3:48 PM
To: Conaghan, Pat (MP)
Subject: Refugees

Dear Mr Conaghan,

I am writing to you as my local representative because it has distressed me for years now that refugees have been imprisoned and left without any certainty of a normal future life in society. Every one of them has fled persecution, whether called by our country a 'refugee' or asylum seeker. Only desperate people risk their lives in leaky boats, not cunning criminals as one or two politicians have described them.

Please do your utmost to have all of them, either offshore or here locked up from Christmas Island (the Biloela family) to mainland cities, released into society. You can be assured that there are many many organisations prepared to care for all of them. It has been so utterly cruel and immoral what Australia has and still is doing.

Thank you also for your advocacy concerning a decent amount for our unemployed to live on.

By the way, millions of dollars,hundreds of millions, will be saved by doing this. Just read about what Peter Dutton has showered various companies(e.g. Paladin) with in return for 'guarding' the refugees.

Regards,

Pat de Jong.