Email

Harrowing stories of immigration detention

By Linda Briskman

Posted September 25, 2008 08:34:00
Updated September 25, 2008 08:35:00

A citizen's inquiry into immigration detention has revealed in graphic detail the brutality inflicted on innocent men, women and children in Australia's immigration detention centres.

In the wake of the government inquiry of 2005 into the circumstances of the detention of Australian resident Cornelia Rau, the Australian Council of Heads of Schools of Social Work responded to concerns of refugee advocates that the terms of reference of that inquiry were too narrow. The social work academics initiated a broad-ranging People's Inquiry into Detention.

This became a collective undertaking with people from all around Australia participating in the process. In total, 10 public hearings were held in which 200 people testified and 200 written submissions were also received. Together with documentary evidence the accounts have been compiled in Human Rights Overboard: Seeking asylum in Australia. The book was themed into four sections: journeys into detention; the processing of claims; detention; and life after detention.

The people's inquiry heard heart-breaking evidence of the unnecessary cruelty inflicted by the Howard government on people seeking asylum in Australia. It places the stories of detention on the public record from the perspective of those most affected by the policies and practices.

Human Rights Overboard tells of the deaths of over 360 asylum seekers, including 148 children, during boat journeys to Australia in 2000 and 2001.

One man told the inquiry his mother was one of two women who drowned after their boat sank during interception by the Royal Australian Navy.

They managed to bring the husband of the woman who had died. He told us that your mother has unfortunately passed away, but your children are in the other boat. I was devastated. I screamed, I cried, I was very, very sad but I couldn't do anything. As soon as we get into the big boat my wife was running towards our children. She started hugging them and crying with them. I asked the authority to show me my mother's body and they just show the body from a distance.

The inquiry also heard that for asylum seekers who survived the dangerous journey, the relief and joy of sighting Australian land was short-lived. Those who were allowed to make claims for refugee status were placed in detention centres, mostly situated hundreds of kilometres from Australian capital cities or on far flung Pacific Islands. In making claims for refugee status, they faced obstruction and suspicion from the Immigration Department and struggled to deal with an assessment process the people's inquiry heard is seriously flawed, subject to political influence and which often takes years to recognise claims.

Migration agent Marion Le told the inquiry about helping unaccompanied children on Nauru:

We were there very late one night and seven young people came in. I looked and I thought, My God, how old are you? One said, I think I'm 14. This is 2004, they had been there over three years, and he thought he was 14. On at least one of the files was written a note from a DIMIA woman officer. 'I have been asked to change this child's age to make him over 18 and because I am asked I am doing it, but I do not agree.'

The people's inquiry also heard from numerous sources of shocking conditions inside detention centres - essentially privatised prisons.

It was told of people being forced to steal food to feed their children, of assaults on both adults and children, of physical and mental health care so inadequate that many former detainees now have serious, permanent disabilities. A lack of accountability created a culture of violence and self-harm within detention. Protests were routinely met with armed force. The inquiry was told of people eating glass and gravel and pouring boiling water on themselves, and presented with images of self-harm too graphic to publish.

A boy who spent three years in detention said:

The worst thing, I will never forget it, was people cutting themselves. It was horrible. I remember one time a person was harming himself up a tree and his children was crying under the tree. His wife was crying and yelling under the tree. His blood was dropping from the tree.

Once released from detention, many refugees told the inquiry their experiences had irrevocably changed them. Many were unable to forget the violent images they had been exposed to in detention and suffered ongoing mental health problems. Others told how the uncertainty of their temporary visa status compounded their anxiety.

Human Rights Overboard makes strong recommendations to the government to overhaul the immigration system by removing racism, restoring human rights and reinstating accountability.

Professor Linda Briskman is the Dr Haruhisa Handa Chair of Human Rights Education at Curtin University, Perth. Prof Briskman authored Human Rights Overboard: Seeking asylum in Australia, published by Scribe, with Susie Latham and Chris Goddard.

Tags: immigration, human-rights, refugees, australia

Comments (111)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

• Neal:

  25 Sep 2008 9:04:37am

  "A lack of accountability created a culture of violence and self-harm within detention."
  
  Yes because they were fleeing from such paradise in the first place which could not have possibly had any effect on their social conditioning.
  
  As for the deaths of people in transit illegally, how is that our problem?

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Zibethicus:

    25 Sep 2008 9:28:23am

    The article speaks of poor conditions within our own 'detention centres', and, ignoring what we have done to these people, you choose to focus on what we haven't done to them.
    
    I think, perhaps, you have missed the point.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Juno:

      25 Sep 2008 9:41:02am

      Agreed, treating people better than the murderous despots or gangs of killers they're fleeing is hardly anything to be proud of.
      It never ceases to amaze me that the same people blathering about how much better 'we' are than everyone else, are always the same ones suggesting we take the lowest possible moral ground.

      Agree (2) Alert moderator

    • Neal:

      25 Sep 2008 11:22:04am

      Zibethicus, this article starts of by clouding the issue. By laying the blame of pre-existing problems at the feet of the previous government. The government was not responsible for the deaths that occurred in transit, this has never been alleged or proven.
      
      Nor does it address the fact that these people are allegedly fleeing countries where violence etc are the norm. So social conditioning would not now influence their behaviour. If they behave violently in detention centres then I would shudder to think what they would do if let into Australian society.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Zibethicus:

        25 Sep 2008 12:26:07pm

        Neal; I agree that there has never been anything to connect any member of the ADF with a death in transit as far as I know. As far as I know - admittedly not very - all the members of the ADF are thoroughly professional people attempting to do an unpleasant job under challenging circumstances.
        
        But I'm not sure that this is what is at issue here. After all, the headline of the article states that it is about "the brutality inflicted on innocent men, women and children in Australia's immigration detention centers".
        
        I hardly think that it is either fair or logical to blame refugees who are fleeing war zones to escape murderious violence for wishing to escape threats to their lives. Neither does it follow that a person risking their lives to escape violence will then always or necessarily themselves behave violently. The psychological record of trauma suggests that self-violence is at least as common, and many of the sad acts recorded in detention centers are exactly that: violence to the self.
        
        And, speaking of "clouding the issue", I don't see any discussion on your part of the actual /reasons why/ people behave violently in detention centres. Given the indefinite periods of detention, might not sheer desperation be a factor in rushing the wire?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Fratelli:

        25 Sep 2008 9:47:15pm

        "If they behave violently in detention centres then I would shudder to think what they would do if let into Australian society."
        
        Conditions inside the detention centres and those outside in normal society arent really the same thing are they? So to make a comparison is ridiuclous. Clearly, this self-harm is at least linked to the condition of their detention.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • bemused:

      25 Sep 2008 11:45:52am

      The detention centre in Port Hedland was (and probably still is) across the road from the one religious high school there. Looked very similar too, only the detention centre had much better facilities and was, on the whole, nicer. I walked past it every day for 3 years.
      
      If you look at the more remote ones, sure they aren't great, but compare it to the army/airforce facilities in similar areas. Guess which one got airconditioning first. And how long it took for the defence force bases to get it afterwards.
      
      There are a lot worse places to be.
      
      They are fed and housed. There are a lot of people already living in this country that aren't so lucky.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Zibethicus:

        25 Sep 2008 12:32:03pm

        Perhaps you've read that great Czech literary classic of the First World War, /The Good Soldier Svjek/. Svejk is arrested by the secret police for 'subversive activity' (talking politics in the pub) and thrown in jail:
        
        "Nowadays it's fun being locked up," Svejk continued with relish. "There's no quartering, no Spanish boots. We've got bunks, a table, a bench. We're not squashed together like sardines: we get soup; they give us bread and a jug of water. We've got our latrines right under our snouts. You can see progress in everything."
        
        (Parrott trans., Penguin edn, Ch.2)
        
        Oh, to be in prison in Australia, now that April's there! Maybe they should put a clipboard on the gate, so we can put ourselves on the waiting list...

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Pencil:

        25 Sep 2008 12:39:20pm

        Just an update that this detenion centre in Port Hedland has now been transformed into fly in/fly out accommodation for contractors.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • JayR:

        25 Sep 2008 12:44:16pm

        razor wire, locked gates and armed guards removed, transit times of days instead of being left to rot for years with no update on the visa process etc.
        
        Yep, pretty much just leaves the shell of the building the same thing. I dont think the inmates were critiquing the architecture of the place...

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Rachel:

    25 Sep 2008 10:04:03am

    Its our problem because people died - isn't that enough?
    If you need more, its our problem because they died as a result of actions of the Australian Defence Forces acting on orders enforcing a cruel, inhuman, unnecessary government policy.
    Have you ever spoken to a person that was kept in detention? Have you ever seen a 4 year old child unable to speak clearly or make eye contact because he learnt in his early formative years that these 2 simple actions make you a target?
    Have you ever seen the physical scars on a young mother's body from the beatings inflicted after she requested not to be handcuffed in front of her two young sons when being taken to the medical centre?

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Neal:

      25 Sep 2008 11:12:56am

      Please show me one proven example of a person having died as a result of the interevention of the Defence Force in detaining boat people? Fact is it hasn't happened. People have died jumping in the water, and people have died from malnutrition, but none have died as a result of being detained by the Defence Force.
      
      And funnily enough I would suggest that that four year old who cannot make eye contact should consider himself lucky he's survived his formative years.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Jeremy:

        25 Sep 2008 1:12:04pm

        You seem to completely miss the point. The article is not saying that we did the wrong thing by causing people to die, it's saying that when they did die, we didn't treat their relatives with respect.
        
        "I asked the authority to show me my mother's body and they just show the body from a distance."
        
        Imagine that was your mother. Sure there are worse things in the world than not getting to see your mother up close, but why inflict that kind of misery when there is no gain from doing so?

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Mike Brisco:

        25 Sep 2008 3:58:31pm

        Neal
        "Please show me one proven example of a person having died as a result of intervention of the defence force"
        
        Certainly.
        
        One of the SIEV boats - cant remember which - was corralled in the lagoon on Ashmore Reef, and the ADF intervened to keep people on board instead of letting them come ashore. A fire broke out on the boad, and at least two people died. Those people would be alive still, had they been ashore when the boat burned. They are buried on Christmas Island. This is documented in the Senate inquiry.
        
        And that is the death I know about. There may well be others that have not been made public.
        
        
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • min:

      25 Sep 2008 11:41:12am

      Have I spoken to a person in detention? Yes I have. He told me he would happily stay there the rest of his life if it meant he did not have to return to his place of origin. He said he was safe, had food, shelter, medical attention. He told me that compared to where he had come from, being in detention gave him his life back. He also told me that if he had his time over again he would not have undertaken the sea journey, he felt the people smuggler had misled him. He had 2 friends drown after the boat broke down. He was gratfeul that an Australian patrolboat had come along or they all would have died at sea.
      

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Tank:

      25 Sep 2008 11:57:33am

      I knew a family that came here illegally and they said they would stay in a detention centre ``forever'' because it was ``so much better'' than where they'd come from.
      Food, clothing, medical care, school lessons for the kiddies and a sense of security.
      They wanted to thank Australia for helping them rather than cry buckets of self-pitying tears that so many people shed here.
      It's time for critics of the legal detention system - originally introduced under a Labor government - to grow up, oh yes.
      

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Peter:

      25 Sep 2008 1:39:12pm

      its a big bad world out there where everybody is just in it for themselves.
      if they want to jump on a boat and come here without permission then they can accept whatever consequences arise from their actions.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • braddles:

    25 Sep 2008 12:22:28pm

    These people are dying. God help you if you ever have to flee somewhere. I will help you because I am someone who cares, but you may run into people with your own attitude. What then?
    
    The attitude reflected in your entire comment is hurtful and ignorant. People with these types of mis-guided beliefs need to take a hard look at why they believe such things. The human touch is missing in many peoples' lives and attitudes these days in regards to helping others.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • bemused:

      25 Sep 2008 1:24:11pm

      Seriously, we're surrounded by water. If you flee here, there are probably many destinations that were close/easier to get to. People choose to go out of their way to get here. It's like complaining someone bought you a car but it wasn't a BMW. I'm not saying we shouldn't take any (we do through official chanels anyway). Seeking asylum somewhere could be classed as a need. Seeking asylum in a country of your choice because you believe it is the place you most want to go... well that already has the word "want" in it, doesn't it?
      
      By no means am i saying people shouldn't be able to seek sactuary or that we should turn them all back, but if they choose Australia as a destination and come outside of the official channels that we have set up then they are choosing to deal with our system.
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Greg h:

    25 Sep 2008 2:59:24pm

    I guess unless these people are given full citizenship rights as soon as they land on Australian soil and given unlimited access to the welfare system, the refugee activists wont be satisfied,

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mike Brisco:

    25 Sep 2008 3:52:12pm

    "As for deaths of people in transit illegally - how is that our problem?"
    
    First, these people are not in transit illegally; under international law, they are entitled to come here to seek asylum; and in landing in Australia actually no Australian laws are broken. The myth of illegality was repeated often to create certain impression of the people seeking asylum. That impression was incorrect.
    
    "How is it our problem?"
    International maritime law puts a responsibility on nations to rescue those in peril at sea, whoever they are. The intention of this law is clear and unmistakable, and Australian govt signed up to it.
    
    
    "How is it our problem"?
    If people die who we are supposed to protect - it is our problem.
    
    I am not sure what we do about it, but it is our problem.
    
    It is our problem at the time.
    
    If the nation chooses to turn its back, later when we find out what went on (as per Senate inquiries), it is still our problem.
    
    Australians can only deal with this, by owning what happened. By being open and accountable.
    
    

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

• dragon:

  25 Sep 2008 9:07:50am

  They are fleeing their own violent countries to come here for a fresh and peaceful start. They then suffer a little through the 'system' and then upon release say they have been mentally scarred for life ?
  I'm sure in Iraq (as an example) they would get great support for their mental scarring !
  And to say that their joy of sighting Australia is short-lived ?
  They always have the option of being sent back !
  I have compassion for their plight but I think outside sources (eg bloody lawyers) are taking this issue and are gunning for more compensation pay outs. And before anyone flames me for being uncompassionate, just remember who will be paying it !

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Roger Vella Bonavita:

    25 Sep 2008 9:53:57am

    Dragon, You lack charity. No one deserves to be treated the way our government treated these refugees. What happened in the camps was appalling by any standards. It was partly due to the Howard government making it very difficult for these people to make a proper legal case and partly to the lack of accountability of the department.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • dragon:

      25 Sep 2008 10:05:14am

      I knew that my coments would be misinterpreted ... sorry !
      I am saddened by the way these poor people have been treated in a 'civilised' society. I am having a go at the 'outside' nfluences that WILL try and reap the rewards of this mistreatment !

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • min:

      25 Sep 2008 11:57:43am

      They could have made their applications from Indonesia or at any other point along their journey here.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • sli:

    25 Sep 2008 10:06:41am

    "they always have the option of being sent back" - nice one Dregon - your compassion is overwhelming - good attempt at absolving us any responisbility for their treatment though.
    
    The "Pacific Solution" was a shamefull episode in Australian history and we cannot ignore the impact of our actions on the poor people (and they are people - not just "assylum seakers") who were caught up in the heartless political policies of the previous government.
    
    shame on us all

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jeff N:

      25 Sep 2008 11:25:31am

      The Pacific solution was an excellent solution. It was well received across much of Australia. When the asylum seekers exited their country of origin, they were free of the alleged persecution. When they reached Indonesia, they were free of the alleged persecution. But they stipulate that Australia is where they will live. That makes them economic migrants. There will be many more over the coming decades as over-population and climate change wreak havoc on coastlines throughout sth-east asia.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Steve:

    25 Sep 2008 10:25:04am

    What on earth does a report advocating change in mandatory detention have to do with compensation? Why must we always come back to anti-lawyer rhetoric?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • dragon:

      25 Sep 2008 10:30:57am

      Steve,
      I hope you are not naiive enough to think that there aren't lawyers talking to some of these 'victims' right now ?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Steve:

        25 Sep 2008 11:17:39am

        Of course not - I work in the legal industry. What I don't understand is why every issue immediately gets relegated to 'we can't do anything because evil lawyers will want to obtain massive payouts'. The government can fix the problems with immigration detention without admitting fault, and if they do admit fault, they can do it under parliamentary privilege so that it's inadmissable in court (a la the Apology).

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • dragon:

        25 Sep 2008 11:46:20am

        I see your point but even 'The Apology' is not the end as there are compensation seekers out there right now. There was a story in the ABC yesterday about this very issue of compensating the 'stolen' generation. Parliamentary Privilege is not immune !
        (And I apologise if I have offended the majority of the legal fraternity)

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Ford:

        25 Sep 2008 1:52:22pm

        Parliamentary priviliege is 'immune'...the cases around now for compensation aren't using the apology as evidence to support their claims...and many of them were launched prior to the apology ever being given, Howard's lie that the apology would lead to massive payouts was obvious when the compensation cases commenced under his watch.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• elle:

  25 Sep 2008 9:08:01am

  All strength to those who testified in this People's Inquiry. The 'Pacific Solution' was one of the most unfair and poisioned aspects of the last federal government. Howard's use of the navy as gatekeepers in perverting the most basic human rights of refugees is a sad legacy for our national history, and a blight on our collective reputations. It would be of benefit for the nation to have these experiences documented and published so that future generations understand the long term implications of locking (not only) children up for years and years on the basis of populist paranoia. Reading these stories should be integrated into school curriculums. Some detention centres are better known as concentration camps. The stories told by centre staff are just as disturbing.

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Realist:

    25 Sep 2008 10:04:16am

    Yes, detaining illegal entrants so that their identities, health and claims can be verified and assessed is certainly on par with the systematic rounding-up and extermination of millions of people.
    
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Steve:

      25 Sep 2008 10:26:21am

      Concentation camps and death camps are distinct. On a defintional level these centres are indeed concentration camps - they are where we concentrate illegal aliens.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jeremy:

      25 Sep 2008 1:14:03pm

      Detaining a child for up to 5 years is possibly a little excessive if you're just trying to verify their details. How is it that the current government has managed to cut down the length of time people spend in detention so that it's less than 100 days now? Clearly the process was broken.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Greg h:

        25 Sep 2008 3:05:17pm

        Simple, Because this current Labor govt has abandoned the stringtent checks on background and it is simply handing out visas to those who ask for it.
        
        Evans has already given 100's of such visas as he thinks there is no point in checking for it.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Barry:

  25 Sep 2008 9:17:20am

  >>>>>evidence of the unnecessary cruelty inflicted by the Howard government
  
  Detention centres were set up by the Labor Government not the Howard Government. You can see the bias very clearly.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • NT boy:

    25 Sep 2008 9:47:54am

    They were used by the Howard Government - all of these atrocities happened under the Howard government watch - don't try and switch blame here... Do we blame one government for all the deaths on a highway they decided to build? when successive governments refuse to fix black spots? no we don't..
    I hope Howard reads this report but I doubt it...

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • TonyInTsv:

      25 Sep 2008 3:44:23pm

      What atrocities? how many detainees have been physically or mentally abused by agents of the Australian government? we've all seen the images of the detainees sewing their lips together, which I suppose was really done by the guards? The only injuries I have seen in the media have been those inflicted by themselves. They have been provided with food, shelter, education and health care all at no cost to them. I live in Townsville and if I need to see a doctor I have to pay $50 (of which I get $30 back) and even then I have to wait a week or more. My 5 yr old son needs an echocardiogram for a heart murmur but I can't get one for him because there are no sonographers certified to do them on under eights. I'm seriously considering becoming an illegal immigrant my self just so I can get decent health care.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • JayR:

    25 Sep 2008 12:48:41pm

    We're not talking about the architecture of the place.
    
    Being left to rot for increasingly longer times with no news or idea of when you may be getting processed, extremely limited access to the outside world, sometimes seperated from your family, being lobbed in with ethnic groups yours may have been fleeing also, harsh treatment by notable numbers of the security 'contractors' (all about breaking the accountability link with government when things inevitably go wrong).
    
    These were things that became far worse under the previous government. It is inexcusable.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

• zeb:

  25 Sep 2008 9:25:50am

  Without doubt the Howard detention policy will go down as one of the darkest moments (if not the darkest) in Australia's political history since federation. Howard and those Ministers involved in this sickening abuse of human rights and, in particular against young children, must be brought to account. We should never forget the immense suffering inflicted on those imprisoned simply because they yearned to be free.

  Agree (2) Alert moderator

  • Realist:

    25 Sep 2008 10:06:18am

    That's funny, I'd have thought that considering contemporary viewpoints today, the ALP-instituted and backed White Australia Policy would take the cake, but I guess since John Howard didn't do that it can't be evil.
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Steve:

      25 Sep 2008 10:26:51am

      The White Australia policy dates from before the ALP's existence.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Simon:

      25 Sep 2008 10:50:33am

      It was the ALP under Whitlam that abolished the white Australia Policy.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Barry:

        25 Sep 2008 11:33:13am

        It was also the ALP who originally set it up.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • TobyII:

        25 Sep 2008 11:58:44am

        That's only a half truth. The whole truth is that conservatives (Protectionists under Barton) and labor movements (soon to be ALP) alike laid the groundwork (Immigration Restriction Act of 1901) for implementing such a policy.
        
        In any case, who started the policy is a red herring that detracts from the fact that the Howard used immigration... no, manipulated and amended immigration and detention laws to suit his own political needs at the great expense of many.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Barry:

        25 Sep 2008 12:50:24pm

        Howard actually increased immigration. Detention centres have nothing to do with normal immigration. They are all about illegal immigration and no country allows that. As a lot of people have said - if they wanted asylum, why didn't they apply in the first county they came to where it was possible. Why pay people smugglers to get to Australia.
        
        We haven't seen any boats arrive for a long time now.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Fratelli:

        25 Sep 2008 10:02:00pm

        "Why pay people smugglers to get to Australia."
        
        These people are willing to risk life and limb, of themselves and their families, they are often destitute, starving, scared and fleeing violence.
        
        Do you think if there was another way, they wouldn't take it? Of course they would.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • TobyII:

      25 Sep 2008 11:29:53am

      Actually, the 'White Australia Policy' was, ostensibly, a bipartisan agreement to protect Australian workers, going back to Barton, the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, and the Protectionists (conservatives who were able to form government with the support of the Labor party, but the latter's policies never got up because they did not have a controlling interest). Barton's infamous words to support the legislation were: "The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman."
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • TobyII:

      25 Sep 2008 11:38:17am

      A bipartisan White Australia Policy agreement with Barton at the helm, yes. But, in 1973, the ALP did end the backward policy. I guess it stands to reason that the ALP matured while the conservatives remained in a dark age of bigotry and persecution.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Greg h:

        25 Sep 2008 1:33:44pm

        The white Australia policy was abolished by Liberal PM Harold Holt.
        
        Whitlam instituted multiculturalism.
        
        You are confused there.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Ford:

        25 Sep 2008 1:55:28pm

        The ALP matured?
        Not in their attitudes to GLBT Australians, who apparently are worth less than heterosexual illegal entrants.
        Not in their attitudes to pensioners, who'm they happily admit are unable to live on their current income...and presumably are hoping will die before the 'review' comes in.
        Not in their attitudes to workers, the ALP's replacement for Workchoices is essentially Diet Workchoices (a rose by any other name eh?).
        The reality is the ALP won the recent election by becoming more conservative, they're barely distinguishable from their counterparts in the Coaltion now.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Paul:

        25 Sep 2008 9:04:37pm

        The coalition as conservatives? Don't make me laugh. It's true that the ALP currently are true conservatives, that is not using policies to drive social change but merely reflecting social trends in policy, e.g. law reform to give GLBTI people equal right in many (though not all) areas of federal law.
        
        The coalition (and their glorious ex-leader) are by definition not conservatives, they are regressives! That is refusing to recognise social trends (on assylum seekers, on nuclear energy, on climate change, on workchoices, on the illegal war in iraq, on GLBTI rights, on the stolen generation of indigenous children etc.) and in fact using policy to maintain values long abandoned by the community. They are regressives.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• twobob:

  25 Sep 2008 9:34:18am

  Unbelievable that anyone could read this and then try to find blame in the victims themselves. This type of thing could only be done under the cover of anonymity because you would find the amount of contempt that most Australians would dish out to you unbearable.
  
  This is why so many once proud Australian felt shame for their nation and what it became under the howard government. I am one.
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Zibethicus:

    25 Sep 2008 10:52:18am

    I agree wholeheartedly. I would like to point out that opposing the policy of mandatory detention is by no means the same thing as suggesting that refugee applicants should not be subject to background checks. There is a difference between a reasonable procedure and an indefinite detention in an offshore prison. Harm has come to people, physically and mentally, as a result of this shameful and quite unnecessarily posture, and recent reports suggest that the harm was not only done to the refugees but also to the unfortunates who had the unenviable job of staffing the detention centres.
    
    If anyone doubts that the policy was at least implicitly racist, let them ask why the thousands of Britons, New Zealanders and Americans who overstay and/or work illegally in this country while here on tourist visas are not keeping the Iraqis, Afghans, and other non-Europeans company behind the razor wire. If they don't deserve such treatment then why do refugees?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • meg:

      25 Sep 2008 11:46:36am

      Actually yes, there have been Brits, Americans, Europeans, Fijians and so forth in detention at Villawood. I dated a yank who had been there, the difference is most of them agree to being removed from Australia and sent home. As for Kiwis, we have special reciprocal arrangements with NZ and I think you'll find they are not considered overstayers and are allowed to work here.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Zibethicus:

        25 Sep 2008 11:58:31am

        To be sure, but I was talking about the thousands of people from those nations who overstay and/or work illegally are /aren't/ put in detention at Villawood.
        
        I think that you'll find that the proportions of people from those nations who are in detention there (not to mention offshore) is minimal, at most, compared to non-European 'detainees'. And, as somebody else has pointed out, the vast, overwhelming majority of refugee applicants have actually eventually had their applications accepted. What, then, is the mandatory detention policy for?
        
        To save that modern Moloch in whose name so many innocents have suffered, "MY TAXES"? What have all these offshore prisons cost us, and who benefits? Or, if it's "TAKING JOBS AWAY FROM AUSTRALIANS" that we're worried about, what does illegal work on tourist visas cost Australia per annum, in units of "MY TAXES"?
        
        Is, in fact, the system weighted heavily against non-Europeans in these terms?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • rfnk:

      25 Sep 2008 3:15:58pm

      Cornelia Rau was Australian claiming to be German wasn't she?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • The Phantom:

        25 Sep 2008 4:07:03pm

        Cornelia Rau was suffering from a mental illness. This issue has nothing to do with her.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Raven:

  25 Sep 2008 9:39:42am

  Could the operation of detention centres for illegal immigrants be vastly improved? Yes of course. It needs to be emphasised however, that these centres are designed to process illegal immigrants. They are not 5 star resorts for holiday makers. In some ways, it may be argued that this could act as a deterant to further illegal immigration.
  
  When looking at the whole scenario, it is clear that many of these incidents were perpetrated by the detainees themselves and consequently, the blame should not rest upon the staff who were trying to do their job in very difficult circumstances. No doubt there is always a thug element who are drawn to this kind of work, but the vast majority who work in these centres are caring individuals who undertake their employment in very threatening and difficult circumstances - often with only the most scant training to deal with aggressive, violent and sometimes insane people.
  
  We must avoid grandstanding the human rights of those breaking the law at the expense of the rights of Australian workers and the right Australia has to protect its own border security.
  

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Jeremy:

    25 Sep 2008 1:20:58pm

    These people are not "illegal" until they've been charged and found guilty of a crime.
    
    It would certainly be "illegal" for Australia to prosecute refugees for the crime of entering the country - which is why people claiming refugee status were never charged with any crime involved in their entry to the country.
    
    It is entirely legal to enter any country if you are fleeing persecution and entirely illegal to persecute people for doing so.
    
    So in the eyes of Australian Law and International Law, they are definitely not "illegal," but perhaps you're referring to some other law?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Ford:

      25 Sep 2008 3:22:41pm

      International Law...lol...a fun myth isn't it.
      Tell me, which court enforces these laws? Which countries are bound by them? Where are these 'laws' enshrined hmmm?
      It's not actually 'illegal' for Australia to take actions against 'unauthorised' arrivals.
      It is also not legal to enter a country regardless of why you're entering them (it's entirely dependent on the laws of the country in question) nor is it illegal for countries to persecute these people (it may be, again depending on domestic laws).
      It's best not to refer to the law unless you're actually familiar with it, it simply makes the rest of your arguments look poorly researched and weak.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Paul:

        25 Sep 2008 9:14:30pm

        I, as an Australian, for one don't want these people here in our country. It's bad enough they want to come here to take our jobs, we're already over crowded. And there's not enough resources to go around as it is. It takes a lot of energy and resources to maintain the kind of lifestyle we have in Australia. We don't want the rest of the world coming here wanting to consume global resources at the same unsustainable rate that we Aussies have an absolute moral right to. How will I explain to my kids that they can't get in a new SUV to be driven 1 km to the local shops, because too many refugees have been allowed into this country? It;s bad enough that 1 billion chinese want to start living their lives (and consume and pollute) like we do. We need to protect our own lifestyle.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• NT boy:

  25 Sep 2008 9:42:33am

  Hopefully this will never happen in Australia again.. We can sit in our nice houses and say it is their fault for coming here but these atrocities happened on our soil... In a country that is considered as one of the best... remember the majority of these people were eventually accepted into the country as refugees.
  This damaged our reputation around the world. When I was in Europe I was asked by a large number of people "How can you guys do that" - sadly I had no answer as I didn't know how we could do it either.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Tank:

    25 Sep 2008 12:02:08pm

    Gee. When I was in Europe people would ask ``why does Australia have such strong, common sense immigration laws and our country doesn't.''
    Asked that in UK, France, Germany and Spain.... to name a few.
    So many people admired the fact we had a strong government that protected our interests rather than cave in to the cry baby lobby.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Ron T:

    25 Sep 2008 12:58:22pm

    Who cares what europe thinks of this on this issue. There treatment of jews and gypsies during and after WW11 was hardly inspiring. And look at bthe problems they are having now with Neo Nazi groups and Islamist fanatics. Don't go there for an answer.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Realist:

  25 Sep 2008 9:58:10am

  Cry me a river.
  
  These people were not "innocent", they entered the country without visas or identity documents. Why shouldn't they be detained until their identities can be discovered/verified and their health determined?
  
  An air-conditioned roof over your head, a bed to sleep in at night, three square meals a day conforming to your superstitious beliefs, TV, phone access and medical care. How the hell can anyone call that "cruel" or "inhuman"?
  
  Detention is not freedom, so do not expect the freedoms of a free person with a legal right to be in our nation. Do we really want to be letting into the country people who are stupid enough to eat glass and pour boiling water on themselves?
  
  People dying while trying to illegally enter the country is not the fault of the government either. How many more people would have died if the former government had not cracked down on illegal entrants? Interesting to note that now there are virtually no "boat people" since the crackdown.
  
  Prisons in Australia are much more brutal environments than immigration detention centres, and we have actual Australian citizens in them. Where are all the bleeding hearts when it comes to prisons and their treatment of our own citizens?
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • NT boy:

    25 Sep 2008 10:10:17am

    The vast majority were accepted as legal refugees, of the thousands placed in detention less than 50 were refused entry because they could not prove who they were.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Mike Brisco:

      25 Sep 2008 4:04:06pm

      Vast majority accepted as legal refugees - yes you are right there, Fr Frank Brennan gives about 90% acceptance in his book.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Toby:

    25 Sep 2008 10:35:10am

    Realist,
    
    Nobody is arguing that people claiming refugee status ('illegals'? please!) shouldn't be processed; the issue is the methods that the Howard govt employed to delay or avoid these processes, and the treatment of detainees whilst in detention.
    
    Oh, right, it's not mental stress or depression, but 'stupidity' that led to detainees to eat glass, attempt suicide (as a number of the guards also later tried to do), sew their lips up. Your expert opinion has been noted.
    
    People dying on regugee boats under the watchful eye of the Australian govt and coast guard/navy is indeed our responsibility.
    
    Australian prisons are of concern, and there are many interested parties looking in to them. This said, prisoners (who, btw, actually committed actual crimes) do get better treatment than detainees ever received (unless, in some cases, you're Aboriginal). Where are these 'bleeding hearts' defending our poor prisoners? Well, in case you hadn't noticed, this forum is about detention centres... duh!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • PRIM:

    25 Sep 2008 12:16:06pm

    We can all sit back and take a crack at these souls who for whatever reason are fleeing their countries in a dangerous and hazordous manner likely to cause harm or death.
    
    We have not asked the reason why they left. Obviously shark infested waters are better than living under constant threat in those areas where they came from.
    
    I do not believe that we needed to keep these incarcerated for such a long period of time and that is more the issue than whether or not they should have come at all. I am sure if they had a choice they would have preferred a peaceful life in their own environment.
    
    From some of these comments today, not many of you are actually privvy to hardships similar to those experienced by these people.
    
    I use the word again "empathy".

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • bemused:

      25 Sep 2008 1:28:47pm

      shark infested waters? you mean there wasn't anywhere closer?
      
      It's not like we're the only safe haven in the world. And we're fairly remote in the greater scheme of things. The average refugee would pass through how many countries on the way here?
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jeremy:

    25 Sep 2008 1:22:41pm

    Actually according to Australian Law, they are "innocent" until they've faced trial and been found guilty. Non Australian citizens in Australia are still afforded most of the same rights as Australian Citizens, especially in relation to accusations of criminal behaviour.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Realist:

      25 Sep 2008 10:18:43pm

      If you enter the country without a valid visa and identity documentation you are an illegal entrant and will be detained.
      
      People who overstay their visas are routinely detained and deported. These people however, do not wallow for years in the detention centres because they don't have "refugee advocates" and other bleeding hearts encouraging them to continually appeal their deportation.
      
      The cold, hard reality is that "asylum seekers" are economic migrants unless they are fleeing from countries neighbouring Australia. How many countries are there between Iraq and Australia?
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Toby:

  25 Sep 2008 10:16:06am

  Good to see that the forum reactionaries are out in force; they never seem to disappoint on issues such as this.
  
  Even though I had an idea about what was going on in detention centres during this time, Four Corners recent report on detention centres still made my jaw drop. The most harrowing was Cornelia Row's removal from a detention centre after officials discovered her presence there was due to a 'departmental error'.
  
  About four or five police and numerous others removed her from her cell while she was having a shower. They didn't let her dress, they didn't tell her what was going on (despite her demands to know), they manhandled her while she was still naked, then strapped her to a stretcher while still naked. Don't forget, they knew she was mentally ill, and she was not guilty or answerable to any charge.
  
  Then there are the subsequent detention centre inmate deaths due to 'controlled restraint' by poorly trained baton-wielding guards. Like I said, I know what went on in those centres, but when you actually see it in action, it shakes you to your core -- as most of the guards involved later discovered.
  
  What I don't understand, after watching those men handling Ms. Row, is how someone can have so little awareness or humanity toward a fellow human being. The treatment they used on her was staggeringly cold and brutal.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mike Brisco:

    25 Sep 2008 4:09:02pm

    Toby,
    
    I agree with the drift of your post - the last word on detention centre guards is Gourevitch's book "Standard operating procedure". PG doesn't explain how guards can lose their humanity, but that doesn't matter. What matters is they do lose it, lose it over and over again, and the workplace is created such that they feel these things are normal and go along with it. Only a few for sure, but a few too many.
    
    A most depressing book.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• LOZZA:

  25 Sep 2008 10:17:14am

  They entered Australia illegally, they could afford to pay the people smugglers, yet they can't legally imigrate to Australia.
  Why?

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • JayR:

    25 Sep 2008 12:24:10pm

    Government policy was all about prevention rather that allow genuine refugees entry into this country. Just remember that we were sending back Iraqis at the same time we were gearing up for war with them. Hypocritical no?
    
    The strong urge to protect your family at all costs should never be underestimated. I wouldnt think for a second that i could presume to understand just how horrible the places these people had been fleeing.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Anonymous:

  25 Sep 2008 10:22:29am

  In 2001 I escorted 49 mainly women and children from Larrakeyah to Fossey's Pavilion, Darwin. Most of the men of these families would follow and remained at Ashmore Reef. The boat was the "Samson Explorer."
  
  That's all I'll say here about it.
  
  The way these people were treated was poor - I will not elaborate here - because to do so may identify me, and I reveived 3 death threats, or threats against my family if I carried out my plan to report the behaviour of those charged with the escort's security. I have a witness to this.
  
  After 3 days I received a visit from a higher-ranking person from Villawood, who asked me about the episode, and insisted I write my report - I had 6 foolscap pages of notes - and still do have them - which I drafted the night I got back from Woomera, of everything that happened.
  
  I wrote the report at this insistence, but abstained from making it an emotional blurb. Instead, while noting the incidents and events, I also made recommendations to attempt to prevent further such things.
  
  I later found out that my "report" was in the bin somewhere! I received (and still have) a "thank-you" letter from the then Centre Manager, but that was it.
  
  No one has ever asked my about my experiences at Woomera, and if they did I would hesitate to become embroiled. This is because I am cynical about anyhting good coming from it.
  
  Rather I am more inclined to believe this would be fodder for the media, and leave me exposed, unprotected, and seen as disloyal to mates.
  
  However I would be happy to give a photocopy of the report on this section of my rotation to Woomera to an appropriate enquiry, under strict conditions that would protect myself and family from the threatened recriminations.
  
  Needless to say I did not return to Woomera for another rotation after that. Few would remember me, or even care, but I did care, and I did speak up. I did keep some notes which I still have.
  
  I sat on my bunk in the old "six-pack" buildings on quite a few nights and cried - speaking out loud at how God could allow this to happen in my country.
  
  And if anyone is listening, I can tell you that the seeds of malcontent were sown the minute the refugees made contact with Autralian security personnel who abused their station.
  
  But apart from the media - no one will notice ... and in time this too shall pass.
  
  I still have no idea where to tell my story, or indeed even if it is relevant anymore.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Toby:

    25 Sep 2008 11:17:29am

    It will always be relevant.
    
    Never give up, and get your story out somehow.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Susie Latham:

    25 Sep 2008 11:51:32am

    Dear anonymous,
    
    Yours is exactly the sort of story the People's Inquiry into Detention documented in the book Human Rights Overboard. Several former detention workers spoke to the Inquiry on the condition of anonymity, which we respected. It is important that these stories be recorded and placed on the public record for two reasons. Firstly, as you can see from some of the comments already posted, many Australians refuse to believe that people were treated brutally here and we need to set the record straight. Second, we must stop the same sorts of abuses from happening in the future, and until more of these stories are heard, and major policy changes occur, the potential for them to be repeated remains. I would encourage you to contact myself, Linda Briskman or Chris Goddard as we will continue to monitor immigration policy and practice and to collect stories such as yours for future publication.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mike :

    25 Sep 2008 4:17:30pm

    Thanks for your post - it is relevant -
    
    "I later found out that my "report" was in the bin somewhere! I received (and still have) a "thank-you" letter from the then Centre Manager, but that was it."
    
    Have just been reading about a notorious detention centre overseas. What you wrote reminds me exactly of that. People seeing things they object to, notifying them as required higher up the chain of command/management - the notification supposed to bring some action - but nothing happening.
    
    In the book, that lack of action was the most sickening aspect of the whole set up . Intereseting to see in Aus, you tellling me, the exact same thing happened. In another detention incident, around the same time.
    
    Thanks for posting. If you can add a story to the inquiry - please do.
    
    
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Pencil:

  25 Sep 2008 11:29:23am

  Did anyone watch 4 Corners the other night regarding the staff working at these detention centres. My pity goes towards them, not the detainees. These people are trying to illegally come into this coutry. We need to be retaining these people before giving them the right to waltz on in and not knowing if they are a threat to our country. These people are placed in detention centres that would be like going from their hostile environment to a 5 star hotel. Yes they are behind a large fence, but they need to be processed for the security of our country. Do we really want people living in our country who go to such extremes to sew up lips of their children and for what reason? Do they really want to come here in peace? Or is their need to be "fast track" into our system have an underlying reason which could breach the safety and security of our country.
  
  Really, how can the government be accountable for some idiot throwing their kids off a boat. So these so called human rights group believe that when a boat load of illegal immigants try to enter this country, we should just let them in without being processed? In this day and age of terrorism, caution and strict scrutiny should be the utmost priority.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Tim:

    25 Sep 2008 12:25:20pm

    Pencil,
    
    I guess you missed the parts in the 4Corners program where the detention centre guards told you why they were depressed and suicidal...
    
    ...ok, I'll tell you: because they were upset about the way detainees were treated in detention centres!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Pencil:

      25 Sep 2008 1:05:24pm

      
      Err, more like the inadequate training and lack of experience the guards had and placed into these detention centres and having to deal with riots, fights and seeing the end result of detainees inflicting pain/death onto themselves.
      
      The guards themselves were brutalised and there were many troublemakers amongst the detainees and the psychological impact caused on these guards alone is being ignored. Everyone is calling foul for the "poor detainee", but what about the guards who had to deal with these fanatics who do not value life as we do. The guards are the "forgotten casualties" as well.
      
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Tim:

        25 Sep 2008 11:59:47pm

        Seems like you didn't even watch the program, as the guards' dilemma of which you speak was addressed in the program -- in addition to the guards being disgusted (after the fact) at the treatment of detainees.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • JayR:

    25 Sep 2008 12:31:22pm

    Aaah, someone who still believes the old 'children overboard' chestnut!
    
    Read the testimonials of many people left to rot for years in detention and often its clear that it is FAR from a 5-star alternative and comparitive - this is the welcome our country gives those fleeing the countries that we condemn.
    
    Lets not forget that terrorists enter countries on planes with visas. Refugees flee despots in order to protect themselves and their families. If you cant tell the difference then you clearly need to open your eyes.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Realist:

      25 Sep 2008 10:33:33pm

      If they were fleeing despots then why didn't they settle in one of the many countries between their third world hole and Australia?
      
      The answer is because they weren't fleeing persecution, they were economic migrants.
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Zibethicus:

    25 Sep 2008 12:47:48pm

    "they need to be processed for the security of our country"
    
    Yup; another startling linguistic resemblance between The Pacific Solution and The Final Solution.
    
    Robert Jay Lifton, /The Nazi Doctors/, Chapter 6: Bringing "Euthanaisia" to the Camps: Action Special Treatment 14f13:
    
    "One key to the nature of 14f13 lies in the term "special treatment" (Sonderbehandlung) as part of the program's name...[t]he use of the term "special treatment" followed a sequence, then, of first being applied to allegedly dangerous criminals, then to medically determined "unworthy life" in the greater society...and finally to still-medicalized "euthanasia" in the camps...of all groups considered by the regime to be undesirable (Jews, homosexuals, political opponents, ordinary criminals, "shiftless elements", Catholic critics, etc.) and now inclusively viewed as "unworthy life."
    
    (end quote)
    
    Just as soon as we redefine indefinite, arbitrary detention of people whose only 'crime' is trying to enter the country as applicants for refugee status, when we redefine imprisoning them for years without trial or appeal /prior to determination of their refugee status, which is in fact subsequently granted to the vast majority of detainees anyway/ as something as prosaic as 'processing', we are in grave danger of committing as grave an abuse of language as the Nazis did when they redefined vicious murder as 'special handling'.
    
    Before anybody lets out this particular squawk, yes of course the magnitude is infinitely different. The moral blindness, however, is precisely identical, and in my opinion it is a national disgrace and a national shame.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jason Hind:

      25 Sep 2008 4:01:56pm

      You are drawing an extremely long bow there. Your comparison is ludicrous. I am not arguing that more care ought not be taken in the detaining of these individuals. The real issue is that Australia has the right to determine who enters this country and who doesn't. A refugee may have a variety of reasons for coming here, self preservation notwithstanding. Opening our borders to anyone who claims to be a refugee is a nonsense, fraught with a thousand dangers.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Emma:

  25 Sep 2008 11:58:05am

  Howard should be held accountable for his actions. At the very least, his pension should be cancelled. After all, we decide who governs our country and the manner they govern in.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Not Happy:

  25 Sep 2008 12:20:24pm

  Don't forget, more than 350 people on the SIEV X died in our name. More than 350 men, women and children drowned in our name. No-one has been charged for these unlawful deaths. Yet

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • dragon:

    25 Sep 2008 1:07:20pm

    So who do you want charged ?
    The suggestion that the Australian Navy watched them all drown is simply ludicrous. It was a tragedy, but one that happens many times over for 'boat' people and refugees leaving their miserably oppressed homelands.
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Mike :

      25 Sep 2008 4:27:21pm

      No.
      
      The Aust authorities were well aware a rickety boat packed to the gunnales with humans, was on its way south, they had seen it depart, knew the time and place it left from, and seemed to ahve been monitoring its movements for some time. the Indonesians also would ahve known. See Tony Kevin's book "A certain maritime incident".
      
      International maritime law imposes on us, duties to watch at sea , and to rescue. Regardless of who or why.
      
      So if the authorities are aware of a risky voyage, and decide not to monitor it - seems like dereliction of duty to me.
      
      Who do we want charged? "Dark Victory" and "A certain maritime incident" contain enough names .... and then there are others whose names do not yet appear in public.
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Thalia in Glebe:

    25 Sep 2008 1:19:59pm

    How did they die in anyone's name but their own? They paid illegal smugglers and took the risk of an ocean crossing. Sadly, they died in that attempt.
    They could have stayed in Indonesia - a country that shared their religious beliefs - but instead they wanted to go on to Australia by choice because this country has such a fine name for looking after those who come here on a legal basis and don't jump the queue..
    
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Noir:

  25 Sep 2008 1:06:39pm

  This whole episode is one of the darkest periods in Australia's human rights history. I was living in Europe during the whole Tampa scandal and was deeply ashamed at what the current government was doing, or should I say, not doing. European friends were asking why this was happening and I could not give a reason, as there were and are no reasons, nor excuses. Refugees are human beings and have the right to be treated as human beings, regardless of their status in this country.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Josh:

  25 Sep 2008 1:20:14pm

  There must be a middle ground in dealing with asylum seekers. We should not have to fork out the resources to set them up nice and cosy because they actually made it here alive. But the details of this report are despicable, and I lose pride knowing that MY home country was governed by people who didn't bat an eyelid when they swept human lives under the rug.
  
  And you people that judge them for 'throwing caution to the wind and barging into our country'? What kind of circumstances do you think would prompt you to risk the life of your family in an overcrowded leaky tub? To leave it all behind hoping that you will wash up ashore with a new life ahead?

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Wake up Australia:

    25 Sep 2008 1:51:11pm

    Isn't this the underlying issue? - the process is to detain people from literally invading our country while it is determined if they indeed are genuine political refugees as opposed to simply seekers of a much higher standard of living - even if that means just receiving our welfare benefits. Surely we are entitled to determine who and on what basis people become entitled to live in our country.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • eachwaybet:

      25 Sep 2008 3:34:31pm

      another part of detention is to check the health of the people, basically a quarantine period. by all accounts this can usually be achieved within 30 days.
      
      no country wants a completely open door policy, systems have to be in place to control the flow of legal and illegal immigrants. However, problems with the system were the unknown length and the inordinate length of time some of these people had to endure in detention centres.
      
      a story from one of the detainees relates to the time he got sent to a normal gaol. He said that even though the conditions were in some respects worse in the gaol, he at least knew exactly how long he had to be in there.
      
      People lose all hope, and then do unusual things (like self harm) if they see no end in sight.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Mike :

      25 Sep 2008 4:35:41pm

      "Surely we are entitled to determine who and on what basis people become entitled to live in our country."
      
      Indeed we are and we already did that some time ago, by signing on to international conventions and documents. I believe those were signed, and endorsed, and their provisions are now embodied in aspects of our own laws.
      
      If Australians want to change this, it can do so. There are democratic processes for withdrawing from such things. If Australians want to withdraw from the Safety of Life at Sea convention, they are presumably free to do so.
      
      But until those democratic processes are followed - and our participiation formally withdrawn - our signing imposes duties.
      
      & I'd regard it as morally and ethically wrong - to have no intention of keeping your side of the deal - and at the same time, have no intention of formally withdrawing.
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• cpk:

  25 Sep 2008 1:59:32pm

  australia HAD to be tough on illegal immigrants. we are a country who shares not LAND borders with any other nation, and this leaves us very much exposed to "boat people" (dont really see any other way that illegal immigrants to get into this country as the skies are covered with missile coverage).
  if we as a nation had not been tough on illegal immigrants then it would have seemed that australia was open to all, and they can just sail on over, and bringing with them any kinds of disease's, and possible floura and fauna species that could damage the australian landscape. We, as with many countries, have got a pretty good policy on immigration and have relatively open borders.
  great work by the Navy, and keep it up protecting our borders

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mike :

    25 Sep 2008 4:37:04pm

    "if we as a nation had not been tough on illegal immigrants then it would have seemed that australia was open to all, and they can just sail on over, and bringing with them any kinds of disease's, and possible floura and fauna species that could damage the australian landscape. "
    
    What - like cats, and foxes, and rats, and rabbits? Smallpox and polio?
    
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• rfnk:

  25 Sep 2008 2:04:50pm

  It's so inappropriate to apply party political bias or ideological bias to an issue such as this. It's also incredible how ignorant of the facts people actually choose to be on this issue. These are the facts: Detention centres were established (by Labor) as part of a broader strategy to manage refugee migration to Australia in a sustainable and humane way. Australia accepted then, and continues to accept, that we have a responsibility to take in refugees. Australia, rightly, gives priority to refugees escaping from the most horrific circumstances (e.g., Sudan). These people have almost invariably survived shocking circumstances in the refugee camps. Australia has not simply allowed anyone who wants to travel to Australia to settle there as this is not sustainable. In this respect, Australia's policy towards helping refugees is commendable but it is arguable that the intake could be increased. It should not be overlooked, however, that it is the union movement - as was the case with the White Australia Policy, not the so-called conservatives, that has been most opposed to this.
  
  Detention Centres were established to deal with a range of illegal immigration issues. Most notably, they were established, with other measures continued by the Liberal Government, to serve as a disincentive to dangerous travel by boat to Australia. Some commentators above would do well to remove their heads from the sand and listen to the stories of Vietnamese and Cambodians who survived these passages - and consider the very low survival rates that applied at the time. These measures may have been effective although the reduction in numbers of boats arriving recently probably has more to do with improved regimes in SE Asia than anything else.
  
  The bragging Australian syndrome annoys me more than almost anything else too but it's hard to see how the Labor or Liberal Governments could have managed this situation better. I'm one who thinks we should increase refugee access but for me it would be through increasing the intake from the worst circumstances - and they're nearly all in Africa. I'd be strongly against any action that encouraged a re-emergence of arrivals by boat - illegal boat travel is a virtual death sentence. I don't like detention centres but I've not heard any of the critics, including the author above, offer any reasonable alternative to detention centres.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Realist:

    25 Sep 2008 10:49:22pm

    Spot on, although I disagree with increasing the intake. (I would like to see all immigration wound back until we can sort out the housing mess.)
    
    What a lot of these "John Howard is evil incarnate" lefties fail to note is that under the Howard government Australia significantly increased its intake of refugees.
    
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• X RAN:

  25 Sep 2008 2:33:42pm

  I agree we need a Royal Commission into the sinking of the SIEV X and those repsonsible for the deaths of more than 350 people must be charged, tried and sent to rot in gaol where the miserable crims belong

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mike :

    25 Sep 2008 4:46:03pm

    I agree - it will mean a great deal of confidential military paperwork needs bringing out: orders, standard operating procedures, recordings from surveillance flights, and so on. Let's hope it happens.
    
    An important first step is people - you and I - remembering. Remembering what happened, remembering it ought not to have happened, and remembering there is a right and a wrong.
    
    & an inquiry, hopefuly will follow the links up the chain of command to where choices were made, about what the RAN would do. It is at that level that the parameters are set, to ensure safety of people at sea, and if people at sea are not safe, then it is there we need to look. It would be good to see senior folk getting jailed as well - not merely let off with a reprimand letter, and temporary demotion.
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Norm McMullen:

  25 Sep 2008 8:26:56pm

  Those people who were in government when Cornelia Rau (and others) got the treatment the Tories deemed right are now in opposition doing their very best to frustrate the government we elected by using the Senate to kill reform.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• PR:

  25 Sep 2008 8:56:09pm

  yet another legacy from the glorious howard era

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Bunker:

  25 Sep 2008 10:54:00pm

  What is the answer open Australia to uncontrolled immigration?
  Not all people coming here are warm & fuzzy think about it.
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• quinny:

  26 Sep 2008 10:24:47am

  I recently came across a transcript where a pregnant detainee had her labour forcibly induced. She was not given a translator to explain what was happening, nor was one given to her husband. I am also aware of some women being forced to have cesareans, all in the attempt to prevent labours occuring in the centres. The experiences were traumatic for them all. [God knows, how mother-child bonding is supposed to occur under such circumstances.]
  
  Any sane person's political or ideological standing about immigration and detention centres should never detract from principles of according every individual their basic human rights. These people are not animals - innocent or 'illegal' they remain humans and to dehumanise them in they way some of these posts have done, is shameful.
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator