Government deports citizen as illegal immigrant.

[husmusen]

linkage

 

More linkage

 

From the first link.

IT was a hot and humid February morning when Vivian Young dropped

her five-year-old son at the childcare centre inside Brisbane's

City Hall.

 

As her youngest son joined the noisy throng of happy children on

the eve of the 2001 state election, Mrs Young said her goodbyes

and walked out into King George Square.

 

It was the last the boy was to see of his Philippine-born mother

who, though an Australian citizen, was later deported by immigration

officials.

 

The handling of her case, revealed exclusively in The Australian

yesterday, is now under investigation by the inquiry triggered by

the detention of Cornelia Rau, the mentally ill Australian resident

accused of being an illegal immigrant and held in detention for nine

months.

 

John Howard apologised yesterday, saying he was sorry if anything

unfair had happened to Mrs Young, 42, who was deported to The

Philippines in July 2001 after NSW and Queensland police failed to

realise she was listed as missing.

 

Last night, The Weekend Australian confirmed that an Immigration

Department official became aware as long ago as early 2003 that

Mrs Young had been wrongly deported, but no action had been taken.

 

It should also be known that to the best of everyones knowledge

the woman has gone missing in the Philipines, you can guess

the three most probable reasons.

 

"if anything unfair had happened"

 

Howard has apologised for nothing and conceeded nothing.

Lets get the reporting straight.

An Australian citizen is deported to a foreign country, seperated

from her child, and now possibly dead, and Howard says '*If* she

was treated unfairly.' He's lucky he isn't within fist range.

 

And how come this only comes to light now?

Could it be because the media is barred from all aspects of this

process, like some ^%^&%7 stalinist state?

 

Last night, The Weekend Australian confirmed that an Immigration

Department official became aware as long ago as early 2003 that

Mrs Young had been wrongly deported, but no action had been taken.

 

I really don't think I need to comment on this, it speaks for itself.

 

That poor little kid.

[Dapthar]

That my friend, is 7 shades of messed up. It's a shame that people can just fall through the cracks just like that.

 

On a lighter note, regarding the first article:

 

A neighbour said Mrs Young, who used the name Ms Alvarez, had "a good heart but very bad morals".

 

Ms Smyth said Mrs Young often smoked marijuana and sewed.

Doesn't this seem like a bit of an odd thing to report in an article? One can almost hear the voices now...

 

Austrailian Govt. Official: "Now we can abide people smoking marijuana, but doing so while sewing?! This kind of reckless behavior can not be tolerated in civilized society!"

 

At least, that's the mental image I got when I read that passage.

[husmusen]

Yeah your right that does seem, strangely out of place, somehow.

 

Perhaps I should change my location to 'Facisti Australi' and start

posting pictures of the Il duce around the place.

 

You know I was almost jovial for a second and then that poor little kid

waiting at the kintergarten flashed up.

 

And besides, fell through what cracks?

That implies someone bothered checking.

When they did find out by accident 2 YEARS later they covered

it up, and why did it take the press 5 years?

Not fscking good enough.

 

Allright I'm cooling down a bit, but I fear the first action of the Howard government when it's majority comes into force will be to shut down the whole inquiry.

 

Additional linkage from the Sydney Morning Herald.

 

Well comrades I will no doubt soon be getting my expulsion orders.

I can only hope I get a seat next to Solzhenitsyn, on the trip to Sweden.

 

Cheers.

[Pangloss]

That kind of stuff happens here as well, and has been my main complaint about the Bush administration (in terms of specific actions taken, as opposed to general politics or ideologies). We've got American citizens in jail being denied due process and the ONLY reason there's so little hue and cry over it is because they aren't of anglo-european descent. It's shameful.

[husmusen]

We've got American citizens in jail being denied due process and the ONLY reason there's so little hue and cry over it is because they aren't of anglo-european descent. It's shameful.

 

Hear, hear!

 

 

But it also begs deeper questions.

 

What bothers me is that (I just found out) there are a lot more

where this woman came from, they are locked up, and noone

can say under what law. Some faceless person somewhere has

givn an order and there is zero accountability. Even senators are

being told, "we'll give you an answer tommorrow" but tommorrow never

comes and with all the forces of the government protecting these

faceless noname people in the beurocracy, theres not much that can

be accomplished by law.

[Pangloss]

Are you a Howard supporter in general, or opposed to him across the board? Just curious, it doesn't invalidate your opinion on this issue if you are the latter, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Sam Donaldson on "This Week" Sunday said he thought it was interesting that all three of the English-speaking leaders who promoted the war in Iraq have now been re-elected. I have to admit that I'm a little surprised at that, given the reported unpopularity of the war in the UK and Australia. But I don't want to change the subject on you.

[husmusen]

It's not that simple.

 

I support a few things the Howard government has done, but

in general my political views align fairly well with the Swedish Social

Democrats so Howard isn't my cup of tea.

 

But neither is the Labour Party, and the Australian Socialist Party are not

sensible enough, they are nothing like the Swedish socialist movement.

 

The Greens and Democrats merged would probably make a good

party but that wont happen.

 

I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, for several reasons,

One, the battle of hearts and minds at home had not been won, so I thought it was crazy to try and win one overseas.

 

Two, I was suspicious of hidden agendas,

namely that the war was more about America gaining geostrategic

points of influence, than a threat to Australia.

 

Three, I suspected the war could run into a long drawn out mess.

(I think was right)

 

Four, This was not an imminent war of national emergency(i.e. being invaded). But a long and planned war. Therefore I feel the

parliament should have had the vote, not the individual, the primeminister,

that he should abuse the provisons in the constitution provided for

the sake of national emergency to

a) Lie to the Autralian people that he had made no commitment.

(the American army unwittingly let it out that the P.M. had committed way

back in November)

b) Repeatedly refuse to debate the issue, saying no decision had been

reached.

c) Then used the emergency powers and said, well the decison has

been made no point debating spilt milk.

 

I felt he should have been denied his war on democratic principles.

 

The Australian election was fought less on the war than on

peoples fear of losing their houses(to high interest rates), their jobs

(to illegal immigrants), and of course there wer all those

 

"terroists can be anywhere call this hotline if you see anything

suspicious"

 

signs. That only got put up in marginal electorates and not in

safe ones.

 

Maybe I'm being cynical.

 

As for Howard as a person, when he "forgot" to have the

widow of Australias SAS casualty invited to her own husbands state

memorial service, (rumored to be connected to her criticism of his

government). That really sunk him,as a person as opposed to

a political figure, in my esteem period.

 

Cheers.

[ku]

I'm a Howard voter, but understand that his hardline on immigration is a shame. Peter Costello will likely be a better alternative. I understand, however, that Howard is a politician and as a politician he needs mass appeal and to do so he might have to, as the political jargon goes, appeal to the "redneck vote." You only have to look at the numbers to see Howard's true agenda. Immigration has increased substantially since he came into power and attitudes in Australia are changing as well. In 1995 about 70 percent oppose increases to immigration, and now only 30 percent oppose increases to immigration. This means that my dad, a factoryowner, is able to employ cheaper and better labor.

[Pangloss]

Thanks for the response. FWIW, I don't think you're being cynical, or at least not overly so.

[husmusen]

FWIW, I don't think you're being cynical, or at least not overly so.

 

Thanks.

 

I've thought about some of the questions and I've found a nice list.

Some of which I feel are pertinent.

 

Why do the public servants in DIMIA have such unfettered power?

To get Ms X out of the country were false documents used?

If so, who made them?

Who made the decision and why?

 

Why has there been no effort since Mastipour in 2003 to make regulations for detention centres?

 

Was this woman taken out of the country during the 'Operation Long Haul'?

 

How was she allowed to enter the Philipines?

Were bribes paid, as with many others outlined in the "Deported to danger" report?

 

How many more people has this happened to?

I also wondered about whether she was alive or dead.

But from the interpol report it now appears she is either

 

1. Dead
   
2. A sex slave in Asia somewhere
   
3. Itinerant with no formal identity
   

[Tetrahedrite]

It is disgusting.

I am not going to mince my words here.......

Anyone who voted for the slime that is Howard's Liberal party and knew of the government's immigration policy and policy on illegal detention of asylum seekers is complicit in this poor woman's (possible) death. They are all also complicit in the almost torturous treatment of Cornelia Rau.

 

People need to wake up to themselves and stop believing the lies fed to them by this government, and stop selfishly thinking only about their own bottom line without any social conscience what so ever.

 

It makes me sick to think that my fellow Australians are so self absorbed that they can't sympathise with the plight of these people. The more Australia aligns itself with the USA (ie the more conservative we become), the more things like this will happen.

 

It is a real shame. We were once considered the lucky country

[husmusen]

Hej Tetra,

 

I agree with much that you say, but you seem to have forgotten

that it was the Labour party introduced this moster and the Liberal

party that fed it. Last I checked the Labour party has not greatly

repented of this, they simply wish to find a 'kinder' way of being cruel.

 

As such they are equally to blame.

 

People need to wake up to themselves and stop believing the lies fed to them by this government, and stop selfishly thinking only about their own bottom line without any social conscience what so ever.

 

Most suffering stems from false belief.

Whether it's, 'poor people cannot be trusted.'

"There's so much work out there ayone can get a job.(all unemployed are

bludgers)"

Or the belief that it's possible for us to have sustainable human rights

without everyone else hving human rights as well.

 

Or the belief that any form of cruelty is okay, 'because it wasn't

our decision we are just doing our job'.

 

The question is given there are many people who feel as you or I do,

what can be done?

Because this will happen again, as long as this system is inplace.

 

In part I feel that we are crippled by the two party system,

in Sweden I would have 4 to 5 real alternatives to choose from.

Instead of Fatty and Ratty the LibLab men.

 

Also I'm curious to anyones opinions on why in the U.S. and Britain,

pliticians can cross the floor but in Australia they seem to be pilotless

drones all obeying the whim of the P.M. and Cabinet?

 

Cheers.

[Skye]

Also I'm curious to anyones opinions on why in the U.S. and Britain' date=' pliticians can cross the floor but in Australia they seem to be pilotless

drones all obeying the whim of the P.M. and Cabinet?[/quote']

It's forbidden in Labor. You cross the floor and you are most likely out of the party, a la Mal Colston.

 

It's allowed in the Coalition. There were a few times it happened on important legislation during Malcolm Fraser's time as PM (75-83), for example. Howard wields alot of power in the party now, and he's avoided divisive legislation. There's not alot that Coalition MP's would feel the need to cross the floor over. His blockbuster's were the half sale of Telstra and the GST, these aren't radical proposals for a moderate right-wing party.

[husmusen]

Yes but how does this come to be, I'm sure George Bush could

probably (if he focussed his resources on it) have the scalp of

(just about)any individual congressman. Yet they cross the floor,

several hundred British MP's recently crossed the floor, yet you have

to go back to Malcom Frazer to find an Aussie MP crossing the floor,

Colston excepted as that had more to do with a liberal offer than principle

I fear.

 

And surely there must be a few people in the entire Liberal Party

who feel just a tad squeamish about locking up little children behind

razor wire in desert camps? Not even one? Or labour for that matter.

If you're not going to have principles about that, then what's the

point of having principles at all?

 

I'm just curious how it came about that everythings so locked down in

the .au political system?

 

Cheers.

 

Oh heres a thought, if power is weilded by cabinet, how are we different

from a dictatorship, (except for a brief moment every three years) as in a dictatorship the leader is also supported by a small oligharchy,

without whom they could not govern?

[Tetrahedrite]

I heard this morning that the woman in question has been found by the ABC's Lateline program in a remote convent in the Philipines. It took the Lateline program a couple of days to do what the Australian government couldn't (or didn't) do in two years.

 

The immigration minister Amanda Vanstone this morning made a cowardly attacked the priest who recognised her for not coming forward to the immigration department two days earlier (trying to shift the blame).

 

In reply the priest has made the comment that he thinks that the government knew where she was the whole time!

 

The plot thickens!!

 

(it's been building for a long time over a lot of issues, but I'm finally getting so angry at this government that I want to scream. If only the rest of the population would wake up to itself )

[husmusen]

I heard this morning that the woman in question has been found by the ABC's Lateline program in a remote convent in the Philipines. It took the Lateline program a couple of days to do what the Australian government couldn't (or didn't) do in two years

.

 

The efficiency of the public bradcaster .

 

Well good, I'm really glad that's about the best outcome I could have

hoped for, better than I dared hope for .

 

I can't help but notice the difference between, the Phillipines and

the Australian Government.

 

The .au .gov kicked out an Australian citizen because they weren't

fast enough to prove they were a citizen, there seems to have been

about zero due process.

 

The Philipines, took in, what in effect was, a non citizen, and cared

for her, gave her food, and a roof over her head, company, and

a smiling face each morning.

 

Therefore this Australian citizen only survived because they Phillipines

were kinder to the Australian, than the Australians would have been

to a Phillipino. (Or for that matter to one of their own they mistook for

a Phillipino.)

 

A question remains, how did they get her to the Philipines,

did they bribe someonme? There aren't too many functions of the

Phillipine government that aren't negotiable if the price is right.

Did they provide her with incorrect documents?

They couldn't have used her real documents because she was not

a Phillipine citizen, or did they sneak her in on a tourist visa?

[husmusen]

Reading around I found some additional linkage.

http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/margo_kingston/001001.html

 

An excerpt:

He said Vivian had told him she'd been deported after a car accident because she didn't have a passport. "They didn't believe that she was an Australian citizen and she sort of was so bashed up and a bit sick that when they said, "Well, we'll give you someone to look after you" well, she thought they were helping her. I think at the time she was pretty well battered, you know. She sort of, she still complains of headaches, but she wasn't really thinking straight."

 

Why can't we see all the paperwork regarding this deportation,

after all it's a beurocracy right? They must surely have paperwork?

Or is the decision just made by some neurotic paranoid immigration

official, "Zass ist ein illegal immigrant! Aus! Aus!"

 

Heh heh, I wonder if claimed to be an illegal immigrant, do

you think they would take my word for it and give me a free holdiay

to Sweden.

 

Cheers.

[JohnB]

The lady involved has now been returned to Australia. Good.

 

There will be an inquiry. Like that will do any good.

 

FWIW, I am a Liberal voter and I'm not happy about this situation at all. There is, however a hell of a lot we don't know so it's rather pointless getting too angry about it.

 

She came to the notice of the Immigration Dept about 5 months after she disappeared from Brisbane. We don't know where she was or what she was doing for that time. (I'm not saying she was doing anything wrong, just we don't know what she was doing.)

 

"The Phillipines" did not take her in, give her food etc, Mother Theresa's Sisters of Mercy took her in. There is a big difference.

 

I, personally, do not want more enquiries into these cases. I want a Royal Commission, with full powers. So far some 12 departmental officers have refused to give evidence in the Cornelia Rau case. One reason being that giving evidence before an "Enquiry" leaves the person open to civil litigation where evidence before a Royal Commission does not.

 

Husmusen, we don't have a two party system, or if we do, so does everybody else. There are some 30 political parties registered with the AEC so there is a diversity, but as in all nations it eventually comes down to "left of centre" v "right of centre".

 

I take it you are also aware that with the hard line on illegal immigrants, the number of responsible parents paying an organised crime syndicate thousands to allow their children onto leaky, overloaded boats has dropped severely. Most of the detention camps have been closed.

"terroists can be anywhere call this hotline if you see anything

suspicious" signs. That only got put up in marginal electorates and not in

safe ones.

I live in a safe Liberal seat and the signs were up here, what was that about "false beliefs"?

[husmusen]

"The lady involved has now been returned to Australia. Good."

 

Agreed.

 

"There will be an inquiry. Like that will do any good."

 

A closed doors inquiry where IIRC all the depertment heads

refused to give evidence on the grounds that it would incriminate

them or "render them liable to prosecution" was closer to the

precise words I think.

 

FWIW, I am a Liberal voter and I'm not happy about this situation

at all.

 

Relax, you only have to be a decent person to be unhappy

about this, Oh I noticed you're in Queensland, by 'liberal voter'

you mean national party, right?

 

There is, however a hell of a lot we don't know so it's

rather pointless getting too angry about it.

 

Yes but why don't we know? Because the process is run more

like police state organ, than an open democratic public service,

if liberals(the public) are happy about this kind of Big Government

secrecy then liberal doesn't mean what it used to.

So enraged, no that's not helpful ofcourse, but angry, oh yes.

There's nothing wrong with being angry about injustice

 

One reason the Labour party has flopped is because they forgot

who they represent, they have become a power factory like the

liberal party.

 

Much and all as I don't like Malcom Frazer, like Hawke, he still

had the odd principle. And Menzies although I disagree with his

politics, would have slit his wrists before he imprisoned a little

girl and he demanded some accountability of his minsters, he was IIRC

big on personal responsibility.

He actually had some dignity and self respect.

 

But like the Labour party, the Liberal party no longer stands

for anything other than it's own corrupt self interest.

Most liberal voters haven't seen that yet, and when they do,

Howard will generously hand over the wreck(party and nation) to

Costello.

 

"She came to the notice of the Immigration Dept about 5 months

after she disappeared from Brisbane. We don't know where she was

or what she was doing for that time. (I'm not saying she was doing

anything wrong, just we don't know what she was doing.)"

 

Yes that was unclear in the original reports, and (reading back) I see

I also failed to clarify it, thanks for picking it up, as it's

yet another big black hole that needs some light shone into it.

 

""The Phillipines" did not take her in, give her food etc, Mother

Theresa's Sisters of Mercy took her in. There is a big difference."

 

When I said that I was thinking 'the people', not 'government of', but

I agree the distinction is valid. And good on them, MT's-SoM do a

lot of very good work they also operate in .au I think.

 

I, personally, do not want more enquiries into these cases. I want

a Royal Commission, with full powers. So far some 12 departmental

officers have refused to give evidence in the Cornelia Rau case.

One reason being that giving evidence before an "Enquiry" leaves

the person open to civil litigation where evidence before a Royal

Commission does not.

 

Three cheers for bipartisanship!

 

I agree, something's badly broken and needs fixing, and it's

it's hard to fix something, if you've no light to examine it with.

I think the citizens rights with respect to government power

are very important, (people call me a doo-gooder because I am

always on the civil liberty side and they do not realise that that

is only for the pragmatic reason that it is always easier to

cede power to a government than to get it back if you cede too much)

 

"There are some 30 political parties registered with the AEC so

there is a diversity, but as in all nations it eventually comes

down to "left of centre" v "right of centre"."

 

I am aware that there are many parties on the books, but I was

speaking in terms of 'In practice', in various communist countries

there were many parties on the books as well, but it was still

a one party state.

 

I would have to disagree with that false dichotomy of left and

right. That is in my experience mainly an anglo phenomenon.

It's like saying, "It's the bosses again the workers, and always

will be", perhaps it will, but it doesn't need to be.

 

"I take it you are also aware that with the hard line on illegal

immigrants, the number of responsible parents paying an organised

crime syndicate thousands to allow their children onto leaky,

overloaded boats has dropped severely. Most of the detention camps

have been closed."

 

I am aware of the drop in numbers, I am far more cautious about

ascribing a single cause, no doubt Howards "Hardline" has had some

effect, as it no doubt would have, had he sent graphic footage of

arriving refugees being massacred on the shorelines, beaming

around Asia. In neither case would success in aim mean the means were

good.

 

I am also aware that New Zealand opened it's doors and took in many

and that according ot Howards hardline theory they would have been

swamped, but the drop off seems to have happened for them as well.

 

This strongly suggests other factors are also at play, and I think

it would be wise to fund some non-political research into what

causes migration waves, and means of predicting them so we can fix

the problem at the source, rather than once it's already well started.

 

I also think that people smugglers themselves should have been

the primary target and not the people being smuggled.

 

"I live in a safe Liberal seat and the signs were up here, what was

that about "false beliefs"?"

 

O.K. but you live in QLD, that's a whole different ballgame,

I stated that it was my personal experience, as such

by implication I am not making any statements about signs in

Brisbane, as I wasn't there then, I was however on various days of the

week travelling between the northern and far southern outer suburbs

(This is in Melbourne).

 

During my train journeys I couldn't help but notice that

in marginal areas there seemed to be a much greater prevalance

of these signs. In the safe areas there might have been one

but in marginal areas there might be 3 just at the railway

station.

 

Now if I was shown a graph of seats and number of of signs,

Indeed I might be able to say, well how about that I was wrong.

Or I might be able to say "well, well what have we here".

I have no exhaustive list however so I will fall back on my

personal impression, and other peoples after I mentioned it

to them and they also began to notice it.

 

But if the signs were evenly distributed in QLD, good.

I don't see how that conflicts with my statement that in

Melbourne they seemed IME less so.

 

But regarding false beliefs, indeed if it's not the case,

that the signs were unevenly distributed, I would want to know.

I have however seen too much of politics to not be aware of such

political opportunism and the effects such signs can have.

 

Cheers.

[husmusen]

Some interesting additions ot the saga.

 

This has now reached parliament and they finally got the

hansard up online.

 

Some valid points were raised and some vulgar avoiding of

questions practiced.

 

From the 12th of May online hansard. (page 46-57)

From the 12th of May online hansard. (page 46-57)

Senator CONROY (Victoria) (3.11 pm)

 

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister

for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

(Senator Vanstone) to questions without notice asked

today.

 

I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator

Vanstone in relation to this shameful and humiliating

case involving the deportation of Ms Vivian Young.

This Australian government has kidnapped one of its

own citizens and deported her overseas. Days, if not

weeks, later, when the Minister for Immigration and

Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs is aware of it, she

will not come into this chamber, face the Australian

public and give a detailed explanation of the facts. She

does not mind going on radio and TV, where she can

dodge and weave and not give the answers. She will

drip a little bit out here and a little bit out there, but she

will not come into this chamber and do her job, which

is to face up to the fact that this is her department and

her responsibility is to tell the truth to the Australian

public in here.

 

You might have thought it was not so bad, except

that this is not the first time Australian citizens or permanent

residents have been detained by this government

illegally. This latest disgraceful episode follows

on from the distressing Cornelia Rau case and the government’s

admission that it has wrongfully detained at

least 33 people. That is right 33 people have been

wrongfully detained, one kidnapped and deported, under

this government. Enough is enough. It is time for

this minister to stand up and accept responsibility, deal

with her department and make the changes that are

necessary in this shocking state of affairs.

Ms Young, an Australian citizen born in the Philippines,

was deported by the department in 2001, leaving

behind a five-year-old son. On top of the 33 people

being wrongfully detained and the case of Ms Young, a

five-year-old was abandoned because the Australian

government had kidnapped the mother and the child

has been in foster care ever since. He has spent four

years in foster care because this government is so incompetent

it does not know what its own department is doing.

 

Following a car accident, Ms Young gave officials

her maiden name of Alvarez. Without making satisfactory

inquiries, the department concluded that she was

an illegal immigrant and pushed her onto a plane. It has

been reported that, at the time of deportation, Australian

immigration officials had to light her cigarettes for

her as she could not use her hands because of the car

accident. The deportation of an Australian citizen with

a mental illness is bad enough, but this case gets worse.

 

What steps did they take to find her? That is what we want to

know. According to the Australian today which broke

the story, and it does deserve congratulations this is

what happened:

 

Due to the differing surnames, it was not until an immigration

official saw the name Vivian Alvarez-Solon flash on the

Nine Network’s Without A Trace two years later that the

alarm was raised. ( Ed: )

 

An Australian government department noticed the mistake

because an official happened to be watching Without

a Trace. This department is without a clue, and this

minister is without shame.

Yesterday, following the public outcry over this

case, it was revealed that Ms Young had been found

living in a Philippines hospice for the destitute and

dying. This appalling episode exposes a number of

issues. What happened when Ms Young was approached

and had it explained to her that she was the

subject of an international search? What was her reaction?

When Father Duffin the priest looking after

her informed Ms Young on Sunday that Australian

authorities were looking for her, she reacted by asking,

‘Will I go to prison?’ What have we reached when an

Australian citizen is so terrified of government officials

that she asks, ‘Will I go to prison?’, when we are trying

to bring her back to the country if she wants to

come? Why is it apparently so easy for an Australian

citizen to be detained and then deported by the department

of immigration? In this case there was clearly a

failure by the department to properly identify a missing

person. The Rau case and all of these other cases being

investigated by a secret inquiry (Time expired)

 

(Husmusen: As we can see inbetween the (justifable) hyprbole,

decent questions are beggining to be asked.

Now observe the response.)

 

Senator SANTORO (Queensland) (3.16 pm)

 

What we are hearing and seeing here today is a repeat

of yesterday’s disgraceful behaviour by senators opposite

with another diversionary tactic. This is another

example of cheap politicking and political point scoring

by senators opposite. It is the sort of disgraceful

politicking and posturing that is occurring day after

day in this place, in the other place across the way and

in other, more open, public forums. There is a reason

for this. The major reason is that senators opposite are

trying to camouflage an abysmal lack of policy and an

abysmal lack of any major contribution to public debate

in the area of economic policy. In particular, they

are trying to camouflage a lack of any reasonable response

to the 2005-06 federal budget. More importantly,

they are trying to take attention away from the

decision announced by their leader, Kim Beazley, that

they will not be supporting the tax cuts for low-income

earners which are contained in the Howard-Costello

10th budget. That is what this sort of cheap politicking,

day after day, is about. Yesterday it was Anzac Cove,

today it is this case and I predict that when we debate

the tax cuts in this place after they are introduced in

the lower house today it will be the tax cuts. We will

see just how relevant they are prepared to be in terms

of what they are really trying to camouflage.

 

Let us get to the nub of this particular point. The

contribution of Senator Conroy who has now left the

chamber was forceful, but it was not valid. He kept

talking not about the Minister for Immigration and

Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs but about the department

that the department had slipped up. He kept

talking about Ms Alvarez being worried about what

departmental people would do. So it is not the minister

that we are talking about here; we are talking about the

department. A tragic mistake has been made in this

case, and the minister said today I heard her my-self ‘

It was a tragic mistake. We are sorry that it hap-pened.

’ It happened 21 months ago. It was a departmental

lapse, and she acknowledges that. The opposition

are demanding answers, so what do we do? As

Senator Eggleston asked: ‘What do we do? Do we

come in here and just give an answer without knowing

the facts?’

 

What did the minister do? She referred the matter to

the Palmer inquiry, and that is proper. What is wrong

with referring the matter to the Palmer inquiry? It is an

inquiry that is already established, so there is no expense

or administration to go through. The inquiry is

there; it is a timely referral. It is an expert inquiry. Nobody

could doubt the integrity and the expertise that

Mr Palmer brings to the table as the chair of that inquiry.

Despite what members opposite say, it is an independent

inquiry, and public pressure will make sure

that the independence of that inquiry is sustained

through the actions of Mr Palmer. So the matter has

been referred to an expert committee. We on this side

of the House are saying, ‘Let’s take the politics out of

this issue. Let’s establish the facts. Let’s stop the point

scoring and let the facts be established.’ At that point in

time, the minister will come into the House and give

the answers assisted by the findings of the inquiry.

We have been hearing today another personal attack

on one of this government’s most effective ministers.

This minister is picked on in this place day after day,

month after month and year after year. One of the reasons

she is picked on is that she does have the answers.

 

How often do members complain about her directness?

 

How often do they complain about how explicit she is?

 

How often do they complain about how up front and

totally frank she is?

 

Yet Senator Conroy comes in to-day

and says that this is all about the department. Everything

that Senator Conroy and other senators opposite

have said about this issue clearly indicates some

failure in terms of process at a departmental level. It is

not Senator Vanstone who wanted to see the person in

question deported to the Philippines and ending up in a

hospice. We all thank God that she has been found

alive and, hopefully, capable of recuperating totally

and being resettled with her children. It is not Senator

Vanstone’s fault that the children have been separated

from their parents specifically from the father, in this

case. We have here another example of cheap point

scoring. This side of the house have tried to depoliticise

the issue. We have done the right thing by referring

the issue to an expert, independent inquiry, and we

are going to stick to that particular course of action.

When we come into this place, we want to give proper,

informed and truthful answers, and that is how it is

going to stand until the Palmer inquiry concludes its

business.

 

(Husmusen:Now the big guns come out.)

 

Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (3.21 pm)

As a former immigration minister, if I had deported an

Australian citizen when I was minister, does anyone in

this chamber believe that Senator Santoro would have

remained silent? Absolutely not. His contribution today

reminds me that he is almost a reincarnated Senator

David Vigor. This particular individual was deported

on Mr Ruddock’s watch he was minister at the time.

One of the things I want is to hear an explanation from

Mr Ruddock as to why this happened on his watch. He

was not too busy to do press on children overboard. He

was not too busy to engage in dog-whistle politics. If

he had been concentrating on the administration of his

department rather than appealing to the lowest nature

in the electorate during 2001, this event may never

have happened.

 

The fact is we had 21 months of silence on this issue.

The message comes in about kids overboard and

you have a press conference within 44 minutes, and

press statements. Within two days you have fake photos

pulled out. There was big action then, but it takes

21 months for this news to get out that an Australian

citizen has been deported. And within a couple of

weeks of that occurring, guess what? She gets found

not by the Federal Police, not by the immigration department

and not by consular officials but by the very

publicity. Thank heavens the Catholic priest was

watching the television at that time or she still may not

have been found. And if that publicity had occurred 21

months ago, that would have been 21 months less that

she would have had to spend in a hospice for the dying,

an Australian citizen!

 

Thirty-three people have been illegally detained! I

lived months of my life over the ASIO legislation that

allows ASIO to detain people for 168 hours. We put all

those safeguards in, and in fact no-one has been detained

yet. Yet we and this government ignore the fact

that 33 people have been illegally detained. Why

would we do that? Senator Santoro says: ‘We’ll leave it

all to the Palmer inquiry.’ I am glad there is an inquiry

going into all this, but we do not just leave it to an in-

quiry. We are elected to pursue these things. Scrutiny

of government is an integral part of the Senate, which

is not understood by the blowhards opposite. It is our

duty as an opposition to pursue these matters.

I heard all the explanation on AM this morning; I do

not hear it in here. I hear of the fake attack on the ABC

this morning; I do not hear the facts being put down

here. Why not? Because they are too unpalatable. I

raised the question today: one of the real problems is

the developing culture in the Department of Immigra-tion

and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. I do

concede extenuating circumstances. They do have to

put up with a lot of false information and false claims.

But it is their duty to be able to discern the truth from

the false claims do not just dismiss every lawyer that

contacts them as sleazy; do not just dismiss every so-cial

worker as marshmallow hearted.

 

Senator Santoro: [ But they don’t do that.

 

Senator ROBERT RAY They do indeed, Senator

Santoro. Of course they do! They were told about Ms

Rau well before they acted upon it. They were told

about these people and failed to act. And guess what? It

does not matter what the result of the Palmer inquiry

is; all of them will get their performance pay. That is

the history of this government, every time in the past.

 

Senator Santoro How do you know?

 

Senator ROBERT RAY Because the major architect

of children overboard in the Public Service got a

Public Service Medal and then got promoted to department

secretary the great Anastasia of the Public

Service, who, in giving evidence in the ‘children overboard’

inquiry, on 57 occasions had to answer: ‘I don’t

know,’ ‘I don’t recall,’ et cetera. And what happens?

You get promoted by being loyal to the government

and covering up. Senator Santoro does not care about

the deportation of an Australian citizen. The rest of us

do. We do care, and we demand answers to it. We are

not coming in here to cover it up. We are not coming in

here because we have verbal diarrhoea like the senator

opposite he is known as ‘Santo the silent’ in this

place and putting outrageous claims in. The fact is

the minister has to take responsibility and has never

taken responsibility in the whole time she has been the

minister.

===================================

 

Well that was that, as you may have noticed no questions

go answered, and the poor minister her department

just does things and whats the poor helpless little dear to

do. This is the state the parliament has come to,

outrage at the suggestion a minister may somehow bear

responsible for the actions of the department she heads.

 

Cheers.