Two letters to Pat Conaghan MP for Cowper re the Murugappan Family.

 Dear Mr. Conaghan,

I was heartened to hear the new leader of the Nationals Party adding his voice in support of the Murugappan family. Like so many Australians, he believes that it is time to end the uncertainty for this family, and to let them return to, and settle in, Biloela. He went so far as to say that, if the little girls’ names had been “Jane and Sally”, this matter would have been concluded a long time ago.

Do you agree with Barnaby Joyce’s assessment of the situation? Will you now join your leader in calling on the government to release the family from community detention in Perth and to allow them to restart their lives in Biloela, where the community will welcome them with open arms?

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Mike G.........

........Valla Beach NSW 2448

 

 

Dear Mr Conaghan,

 

As we know, the Nationals Party now has a new leader in Barnaby Joyce. In recent times he has expressed the view that the Murugappan family should be allowed to return to Biloela and be granted permission to stay in Australia .

Many of us support this view and are concerned to know what your own position is on this . Do you support the view of your new leader and can we look forward to support from your party to put an end to the years of isolation and suffering of this family?  They have the support of their community in Biloela , the husband was in work and they were no drain on the public purse. As the situation has unfolded, millions of dollars have been spent keeping the family isolated on Christmas Island. Do you support this arrangement and will you be a voice in parliament to  press for the family to be able to return to their Queensland home ?

Yours sincerely,

Marlene G........

.........., Valla Beach NSW 2448

 

Letter to Pat Conaghan MP re Udawatta family

From: Conaghan, Pat (MP) <Pat.Conaghan.MP@aph.gov.au>

Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 11:20 AM
To: M.
Subject: RE: The Udawatta family

 Dear M.

Thanks for your email.

I can assure you I have made representations to the Minister regarding the Udawatta family. Unfortunately, I cannot provide you with information regarding the progress of the matter due to privacy reasons.

 It was Raj’s final wish to see his family safe and supported in the community which is their home, and I will continue to do all I can to ensure this happens.

 Yours sincerely,

 PAT CONAGHAN MP

Federal Member for Cowper

From: M...
Sent: Wednesday, 25 November 2020 

To: Conaghan, Pat (MP) <Pat.Conaghan.MP@aph.gov.au>
Subject: The Udawatta family

 

Dear Mr Conaghan,

I recently watched the 7.30 Report news item about the plight of the Udawatta family, and listened the following morning to your interview with Hamish McDonald. I felt greatly encouraged by your expression of support and compassion for Florence Udawatta and her children.

As you stated in the interview, it should not be  necessary for the family to wait eighteen months or more for a decision by the Acting Minister for Immigration regarding the appeal against the decision to not grant them a Protection Visa. In any event, as you will know as a former immigration lawyer, their chances of being granted a Protection Visa, given the circumstances of their arrival in Australia, are virtually zero. The Acting Minister, as you stated, has the power under the Immigration Act to grant the family a permanent visa on compassionate grounds. I was very pleased to note that you have stated that there is no case for sending them back to Sri Lanka, and that the Minister should allow them to stay. They are a much-loved and highly respected family in the local Kempsey community.

I trust that you have made formal representations to the Acting Minister and that you have sought an early decision in this very sad case.

I would be grateful if you could update me at some point on the progress with your representations to Alan Tudge. It would be wonderful if the family could have some certainty very soon about their future, given all that they have had to endure during Raj Adawatta’s illness and subsequent death in September.

Yours sincerely,

M.

Valla Beach NSW 2448

Letter: To: 'Pat.Conaghan.MP@aph.gov.au'---Subject: The Udawatta family

The Udawatta family made a life in New South Wales.(Supplied: Florence Udawatta)

 To: 'Pat.Conaghan.MP@aph.gov.au' 

Subject: The Udawatta family

Dear Mr Conaghan,

I recently watched the 7.30 Report news item about the plight of the Udawatta family, and listened the following morning to your interview with Hamish McDonald. I felt greatly encouraged by your expression of support and compassion for Florence Udawatta and her children.

As you stated in the interview, it should not be  necessary for the family to wait eighteen months or more for a decision by the Acting Minister for Immigration regarding the appeal against the decision to not grant them a Protection Visa. In any event, as you will know as a former immigration lawyer, their chances of being granted a Protection Visa, given the circumstances of their arrival in Australia, are virtually zero. The Acting Minister, as you stated, has the power under the Immigration Act to grant the family a permanent visa on compassionate grounds. I was very pleased to note that you have stated that there is no case for sending them back to Sri Lanka, and that the Minister should allow them to stay. They are a much-loved and highly respected family in the local Kempsey community.

I trust that you have made formal representations to the Acting Minister and that you have sought an early decision in this very sad case.

I would be grateful if you could update me at some point on the progress with your representations to Alan Tudge. It would be wonderful if the family could have some certainty very soon about their future, given all that they have had to endure during Raj Adawatta’s illness and subsequent death in September.

Yours sincerely,

Mike G

Valla Beach NSW 2448

See ABC Story

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

Letter to Pat Conaghan MP, August 2019

                                                                                8^th August 2019

 Dear Mr Conaghan,

You will be aware, I’m sure, that some one thousand refugees and their friends recently held a demonstration outside parliament.

These people have been accepted by Australia as genuine refugees who cannot return to their countries of origin because they have a well-founded fear of persecution or worse. After all the trauma that they have suffered, they need now to rebuild their lives in Australia. Sadly, the current government policy of issuing these genuine refugees with Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) or Safe Haven Enterprise Visas (SHEVs), rather than permanent protection, makes it very difficult indeed for them to get on with their lives.

Many of these refugees are separated from their families, and haven’t seen their loved ones for years, but these temporary visas do not permit their families to join them. Without the express permission of the Australian government, they are not permitted to travel overseas to third countries where they could at least meet up with family members. Every three years (TPVs) or five years (SHEVs) they have to reapply for protection, meaning that their lives are full of uncertainty. Just imagine a female refugee being forced to relive her story of sexual violence at the hands of militias, to a complete stranger, often male, through an interpreter. Why do we need to punish and humiliate people in this way?

And what about their children, as they approach university age? Their temporary visa means that they are not able to access the student loans scheme (HECS), but are required to pay the full overseas student fee, which is completely beyond the capacity of almost every refugee family.

It should be abundantly clear that these temporary visas serve no good purpose, and that they inflict great harm. It need not be like this. It has not always been like this.  Other developed countries treat their refugees with compassion, regarding them as an asset rather than a burden. With the federal election now behind us, this is surely an opportune moment to right this wrong and to put this punitive and unnecessary policy behind us.  I request that you raise these matters with the Department of Home Affairs, and that you advocate for a change of policy, namely the reintroduction of permanent protection for those whose claim for protection has been approved.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

M