Australian 2013 Federal Election Megathread

[brenden]

Yep, it is, and what is, is wrong.

[ninwa]

Similar to t-rav, I think the underlying notion that you make (and which I disagree with) is that there is a fundamental right to be admitted into Australia, and that this right can only be taken away in a trial with procedural due process et cetera.

Strawman. Nobody is arguing that there is a "fundamental right to be admitted into Australia". There is, however, a fundamental human right to seek asylum - i.e. temporarily admitted to Australia or an Australia-controlled territory for the purposes of a PROPER security/background screening. That is not what has happened here.

This is nowhere near the current global consensus. If there is even a reasonable suspicion that you may be a national security risk, then it is only fair to deny entry. As long as it is limited to the few cases in which there is a real risk (and since we're only talking about fourty-six cases out of tens of thousands of arrivals by boat, I am willing to take a gambit and say there is a real security risk in this case) then I'm okay with them being denied entry en bloc.

If you'd read the article you'd know there was not a reasonable suspicion of national security risk that would have been proportionate to the length of detention.

"The State party (government) has not demonstrated that other, less intrusive, measures could not have achieved the same end of compliance with the State party's need to respond to the security risk that the adult authors (refugees) are said to represent," it said.

It also found that those held were "not informed of the specific risk attributed to each of them".

Think of it this way. If I applied for a visa to get to Australia -- even a humanitarian visa -- there are thorough background checks. If I failed those - and there is no guarantee of any hearing, trial, due process or anything at all - then I would be denied the visa.

This is a terrifying view, especially from someone who wants to study law, and I sincerely hope it comes from ignorance rather than informed belief. Due process and the rule of law are fundamental features of our legal system. For the record, immigrants are definitely able to appeal any failed background checks through multiple judicial channels, so I don't see why it should be different for refugees.

[Professor Polonsky]

Strawman. Nobody is arguing that there is a "fundamental right to be admitted into Australia". There is, however, a fundamental human right to seek asylum - i.e. temporarily admitted to Australia or an Australia-controlled territory for the purposes of a PROPER security/background screening. That is not what has happened here.

Assuming your characterisation of the background screening is correct, in extraordinary cases of a serious national security concern, I don't believe that there should be -- and is it definitive that one even exists? -- a right for them to be admitted for any period of time.

If you'd read the article you'd know there was not a reasonable suspicion of national security risk that would have been proportionate to the length of detention.

If you believe the HRC, sure. As you might have noticed, I tend to defer to state agencies far more than the UN on matters of their own national security. The standard the HCR applied is also one which is otherwise very strict for a matter of national security.

This is a terrifying view, especially from someone who wants to study law, and I sincerely hope it comes from ignorance rather than informed belief. Due process and the rule of law are fundamental features of our legal system. For the record, immigrants are definitely able to appeal any failed background checks through multiple judicial channels, so I don't see why it should be different for refugees.

Where the decision to refuse or cancel a visa is made by the minister personally, the person has no right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Whereas, if a delegate of the minister either refuses or cancels a persons visa and the person is in Australia they will have a right to have the decision reviewed by the AAT. If they are not in Australia, they may also have a right to have the decision reviewed, for example, if they have either a sponsor or nominator in Australia.

Strict time limits apply on appeals to the AAT. Applicants in Australia seeking reviews of decisions must apply to the AAT within nine days of being notified of the decision.

For applicants outside Australia, the application for review must be lodged by a sponsor or nominator within 28 days of the day of being notified of the decision.

The AAT will be deemed to have confirmed the decision being reviewed if it does not make its own decision within 84 days of the date on which the applicant was notified of the original decision.

Whether or not there is an appeal to the AAT, an applicant may seek judicial review of the decision, if they believe the decision was not lawfully made

Due process is an extremely important principle. It is applicable to nationals, not to aliens whom are deportable (and definitely not to prospective migrants / visa applicants).

[Russ]

For the record, immigrants are definitely able to appeal any failed background checks through multiple judicial channels, so I don't see why it should be different for refugees.

Give it 3 months

[ninwa]

Due process is an extremely important principle. It is applicable to nationals, not to aliens whom are deportable (and definitely not to prospective migrants / visa applicants).

Bit of selective quoting there, mate. There are entire Tribunals dedicated to reviewing these decisions; the AAT is not the only applicable one (and in fact is used for all government decisions, not just immigration).

There is a process, with the Minister making the decision being the very final and rare step. Before that, it's the department making the decision, and you can most definitely challenge a decision of the department to refuse your visa at the MRT/RRT. Even if the MRT/RRT agrees with the department you can seek judicial review of the tribunal's decision further at the AAT. And even after that the Minister can step in and personally overrule those decisions. What do you think immigration lawyers do all day?

edit: here http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/onshore/866/visa-decision.htm#c
edit 2: which is why the Coalition's proposed scrapping of the appeals process is so fucking terrifying and possibly unconstitutional

Give it 3 months

shut up, don't jinx it

[slothpomba]

Anyone else watch the debate? Looked like KRudd took it pretty convincingly to me (ALP voter).

Any idea whether it's available online?

This shocked me though (cut out some bits for brevity):

A single-minded struggle - Around 65,000 single parents, mostly women, have been affected by cuts to the Parenting Payment.

Nathalie Michel thanks her lucky stars that she got a two-bedroom home through Port Phillip Community Housing late last year. If she hadn't, the single mother and her eight-year-old daughter would still be living with the constant challenge of meeting rising rents and the threat of eviction.

Given that her government benefits have been slashed by about $150 a month, the timing of the new home could not have been better.

Michel was one of 65,000 single parents, mostly women, who were affected when the federal government scrapped the Parenting Payment for single parents with children aged eight and over in 2012. Most were moved onto the lower Newstart Allowance. (Partnered parents now lose the payment when their child turns six).
Advertisement

The maximum rate of Newstart Allowance for single parents is $537.80 a fortnight, while the maximum Parenting Payment for single parents is $683.50 a fortnight.

The controversial cost-cutting measure was announced by the then Gillard government as a way of saving $700 million over four years. It was greeted with an outcry. Many voices, including feminists, welfare groups and some Labor MPs, expressed outrage that a Labor government would cut support to such a vulnerable group.

According to the Single Parents Action Group, the effect of the cuts has been so drastic that some women have contemplated suicide. ''I get personal messages from people telling me they want to give up on life and kill themselves because they feel inadequate and unable to support their kids,'' says Bianca Maciel Pizzorno, who manages the national Facebook page for the group. ''I have to direct them on to appropriate support services. It's very distressing.''
....
Michel's 23-hours-a-week job as a community worker in the charity sector meant she was one of 1200 people who could not claim Newstart when she lost the Parenting Payment because she was working too many hours.

''When my payment got cut off, I had to make up the money, so I requested an increase in hours and was lucky to get a few more,'' she says. ''But that meant I had to put my daughter Leila in before- and after-school care four times a week. That's an added expense.''
....
Like most families, Michel receives Family Tax Benefit and she is also eligible for concessions on utility bills and pharmaceuticals. But the loss of the Parenting Payment, along with changes to the Education Maintenance Allowance (a state-based benefit), have still hit her hard. Even with the community housing place, she outlays 40 per cent of her earnings on rent.
...
The cuts came into force on January 1, despite the fact that the new joint parliamentary committee on human rights recommended a delay until the Newstart Allowance increased.

The amount of money that sole parents lost varied according to how many hours a parent was working and whether or not they were studying. For those not working at all, the cuts averaged between $30 and $40 a week. For those with paid work, the cuts were deeper - some lost up to $150 a week.

The storm around the scrapping of the Parenting Payment feeds into the bigger debate about the Newstart Allowance. The Australian Council of Social Service says Newstart payments are the equivalent of 77 per cent of the official poverty line. And the Business Council of Australia has called for Newstart to be raised, arguing it creates a barrier to finding work for people surviving on $35 a day.
....
Anglicare Victoria's chief executive, Paul McDonald, says there has been an increase in requests for help from parents since the Parenting Payment changes, which he describes as ''bad policy''.

''This has been promoted as an incentive to work, but in fact it is an incentive to have a more stressed and fractured home life. It starts to fracture not only [the parents'] financial sustainability but their emotional sustainability as well.''

''You wouldn't think there was a poverty problem in Australia,'' says McDonald. ''I haven't heard the word poverty mentioned once in this election campaign.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/a-singleminded-struggle-to-get-by-20130822-2se9f.html#ixzz2cluHVuMk

[alondouek]

Any idea whether it's available online?

ABC iView has it

[Russ]

shut up, don't jinx it

You know my track record on political predictions

[slothpomba]

For someone who talks about separation and influence she doesn't have much to say about separating the industry lobby she heads from her political party.... The hypocrisy hurts..

[Professor Polonsky]

Bit of selective quoting there, mate. There are entire Tribunals dedicated to reviewing these decisions; the AAT is not the only applicable one (and in fact is used for all government decisions, not just immigration).

There is a process, with the Minister making the decision being the very final and rare step. Before that, it's the department making the decision, and you can most definitely challenge a decision of the department to refuse your visa at the MRT/RRT. Even if the MRT/RRT agrees with the department you can seek judicial review of the tribunal's decision further at the AAT. And even after that the Minister can step in and personally overrule those decisions. What do you think immigration lawyers do all day?

Except that this is one of those rare and extraordinary cases, or at least for the sake of this argument I'm making the assumption that it is. You'd assume that considering there is a supposed risk to national security, the minister would individually intervene.

extraordinary cases

[ninwa]

I have no idea what you're talking about, I was just letting you know that you're wrong here:

Due process is an extremely important principle. It is applicable to nationals, not to aliens whom are deportable (and definitely not to prospective migrants / visa applicants).

[Professor Polonsky]

The fact the Minister can make an unreviewable decision regarding applications isn't really what you'd generally consider due process through the court system, is it?

I was mostly replying to

For the record, immigrants are definitely able to appeal any failed background checks through multiple judicial channels, so I don't see why it should be different for refugees.

I would imagine that the Minister did make the final determination in this case, similar to the process for offshore visa applications.

Don't get me wrong - I completely support being able to judicially review usual visa denials of any sort. It is not a matter of right, though, which is why the Minister does have the final say. Issues of national security, such as this one, are fit to be determined by the Minister. Hence, I'm not sure where the issue is with the treatment of the fourty-six complainants to the UN - the Minister denied them entry.

[pi]

LMAO

Spoiler

"I have better things to do in my day off"
"Like your brother?"

--

"I want to vote for someone with balls"
"Well that rules me out"

[Russ]

Hence, I'm not sure where the issue is with the treatment of the fourty-six complainants to the UN - the Minister denied them entry.

Human rights or something

[slothpomba]

Since we're not far off now, who are we all thinking about (or would) vote for? I'm usually traditionally a labor voter but i'm leaning more towards preferencing the greens first this election. I disagree with some of their policies but on the average i like their stuff more than labor's.