Jump to content

Is the 'Pacific Solution' unravelling?


Harpodom

Recommended Posts

After my son's kinder Xmas concert yesterday, I got talking to one of the other dads. No one else was talking to him. I asked him how long he'd been in Aus and what he thought of Aus. His answers (18 months and 'it is OK') led me to suspect he might be an asylum seeker and he is.

 

He was one of the 'lucky' ones, arriving before the PNG solution was rebooted. Therefore he and his family were only locked up in a mainland detention centre rather than the hell of Nauru. On BVE, he is unable to work (I presume this might change under the new bill following negotiations in the senate) therefore reliant on centrelink, and has a 'blue' medicare card, to differentiate him and his family from the rest of us 'normal' people. Though he is one of the lucky ones, many have no medicare.

 

His English was very broken but despite that it was obvious he looked and felt like a broken man, unable to protect and provide for his family, unable to ensure that they will be allowed to stay in Australia, because of the capriciousness of the TPV system (thats IF he gets a TPV). It was obvious the thought of returning home filled him with fear.

 

One of the most tragic things he told me was that if he wants to learn English (which he is desperate to do), the lessons are (if I understood him correctly) $400 a month. Ironically, if he had permanent residency, the lessons would be free.

 

Talk about setting the poor bugger up for failure.

 

Shame on this govt.

 

 

did you offer to teach him english yourself? my parents were refugees to UK and learned everyday english from the people in the village

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
All that from someone who doesn't speak English. Remarkable.

 

The best solution for him is a TPV and then to go back home.

 

Yeah mate, I actually took the time and listened to him. Despite struggling with the language he was actually pretty well informed, unlike you.

 

I'm interested to know how you conclude that someone you've never even met, let alone listened to, let alone have any awareness of what they've been through, would be better off on a TPV and then go back home.

 

How about his kids, one of whom is at our kinder, if you were a 'fellow dad', would you make it clear to them that they aren't welcome here and that they are only 'temporary' so they better not get too settled or happy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain what you mean by that.

 

I assume he means that your presence in Australia as a migrant takes employment away from a Australian-born citizen. Your earlier unemployment rate comments is wholly specious as the number of migrants allowed in the country dwarfs the number of asylum seekers and refugees who ever want to come here. In fact the number of 457 visa-holders alone is many times the number of refugees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain what you mean by that.

I was being facetious of course. I can't remember whether you came here as a child or as an adult. But I'd be quite confident you or your parents came here with the aim of a better life, financially speaking. Tony Abot was a ten pound pom, which makes him an economic refugee and a boat person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was being facetious of course. I can't remember whether you came here as a child or as an adult. But I'd be quite confident you or your parents came here with the aim of a better life, financially speaking. Tony Abot was a ten pound pom, which makes him an economic refugee and a boat person.

 

No you are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harpo could give him a job as well as the platitudes.

I'm sure Harpo could give him work at his home gardening or cleaning.

Nah, you'd just report me for 'illegally' employing an 'illegal', you little curtain twitcher you.

 

I believe in giving people a fighting chance rather than making them reliant on welfare and charity.

 

The great irony is that refugees, despite being branded as spongers and leaches, are absolutely desperate to prove their worth and not be a drain on society. If you don't (or won't) believe that, look at the Australian Vietnamese community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, you'd just report me for 'illegally' employing an 'illegal', you little curtain twitcher you.

 

I believe in giving people a fighting chance rather than making them reliant on welfare and charity.

 

The great irony is that refugees, despite being branded as spongers and leaches, are absolutely desperate to prove their worth and not be a drain on society. If you don't (or won't) believe that, look at the Australian Vietnamese community.

 

So give him a chance. Give him a job.

Don't look for excuses do some good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another day, another crime against humanity.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/dec/11/manus-violence-that-killed-reza-barati-eminently-foreseeable-parliamentary-inquiry-finds

 

[h=1]Manus violence that killed Reza Barati 'eminently foreseeable', parliamentary inquiry finds[/h]

 

 

The violence that killed Reza Barati in the Manus Island detention centre was “eminently foreseeable” and the Australian government is responsible for his death, a parliamentary inquiry has found.

In a 156-page report, the parliamentary committee found that the Australian government’s failure to properly process claims for refugee status and an overcrowded, insecure facility had led to widespread frustration and two days of rioting.

The report said: “The events … were eminently foreseeable and may have been prevented. It is clear from evidence presented to the committee that the Australian government failed in its duty to protect asylum seekers including Reza Barati from harm.”

Barati was beaten to death in rioting in the detention centre on 18 February. He was allegedly beaten with a stick by detention centre staff then had a rock dropped on his head, killing him.

Two Papua New Guinean men who worked at the detention centre have beencharged with his murder. Their trial is expected to begin early next year.

The report said Australia had “effective control” of the centre and should pay compensation to Barati’s family and to others injured – one man was shot, another blinded – during the violence.

The committee comprised three Labor members, two from the Coalition and one from the Greens.

The two Coalition members issued a dissenting report, saying the Manus facility had been opened by the Labor government and that the majority report was “an attempt … to rewrite history”.

But they disagreed with only two of the majority report’s six recommendations – those that referred to payment of compensation to the victims of the riot and access to Manus Island for journalists, lawyers and the United Nations.

The majority report also found:

 

 

  • The detention centre was not secure from outside incursion, despite knowledge of local hostility for more than 18 months.
  • The centre was overcrowded – at double its intended capacity – with new arrivals.

 

But it was the failure to process refugee claims, and to explain to asylum seekers what was going to happen to them, that was the major cause of violence, it found.

 

 

Advertisement

 

 

 

 

“The hopelessness of the situation transferees found themselves in, with no clear path forward and no certainty for the future, was the central factor in the incident,” the report said.

The committee found that PNG and Australian staff from Transfield and Wilson had attacked asylum seekers: “It is undeniable that a significant number of local service provider staff, as well as a small minority of expat staff, were involved in the violence against transferees.”

In June 2013 families and children were removed from Manus, making it an men-only centre. This led to an “increased likelihood of tensions leading to violence”, the committee found.

It said in the aftermath of the violence the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, had given information to the media that was wrong – he said PNG police had never entered the detention centre, when they had – that was not corrected for four days.

Those police, the committee found, were under Australia’s effective control. “Australia was effectively financing the PNG police mobile squad deployed at the centre, both prior to and during the events in which its members assaulted transferees,” the report said.

The parliamentary committee asked the prime minister, Tony Abbott, the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, and the immigration minister for permission to visit the centre but said it had received no response from any of them.

But staff who were on the island said violence on Manus was inevitable because of the conditions under which detainees were held.

Nicole Judge, who had previously worked on Nauru, told the inquiry: “I thought I had seen it all: suicide attempts, people jumping off buildings, people stabbing themselves, people screaming for freedom while beating their heads on concrete.

“Unfortunately, I was wrong. I had not seen it all. Manus Island shocked me to my core. I saw sick and defeated men crammed behind fences and being denied their basic human rights, padlocked inside small areas in rooms often with no windows and being mistreated by those who were employed to care for their safety.”

Morrison’s office has not returned calls seeking his response to the report.

The Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, a participating member of the inquiry, said: “We know now that Reza Barati’s death was entirely preventable. The government was warned repeatedly that the situation there was deteriorating and that security provisions were inadequate.”

She said the minister’s behaviour after the riots had been “reprehensible”.

“He lied to the Australian people and blamed the victims themselves. The mountain of evidence submitted to this inquiry all points to one undeniable fact: the Manus Island centre is untenable and must be closed down now.”

The dissenting report acknowledged “logistic and operational” challenges on Manus, but said the government had overcome these with upgrades to infrastructure and improvements to work practices and training.

It did not comment on the findings of the majority report that Morrison had misled the Australian public.

Amnesty International Australia’s refugee coordinator, Dr Graham Thom, said asylum seekers and refugees on Manus were still not safe. “The PNG and Australian governments now propose to move recognised refugees into the community on Manus Island, with no apparent steps taken to ease hostility between the detainees and the community on Manus Island, nor to protect the refugees placed in the community from reprisals and further violence.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest littlesarah
did you offer to teach him english yourself? my parents were refugees to UK and learned everyday english from the people in the village

 

The most effective way to learn a language is to be taught by someone who knows how to teach it. I say that as someone who has sidestepped into adult education, and although much of what I do (which isn't TESOL) is common sense, some of it isn't; and I know I'm better at what I do now as a result of being trained in the specific skills required. But in the absence of any formal education, most people will pick up the local language by interacting with those around them. I guess the difficulty in today's society is that so many people have so little time, between their family and working (most families I know have both parents working).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest littlesarah
So give him a chance. Give him a job.

Don't look for excuses do some good.

 

Anyone employing someone whose visa has a 'no work' clause faces stiff penalties, and the visa holder could face deportation. So offering a refugee whose visa prohibits work would be potentially setting them up for a horrible situation and/or putting them in an awkward position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the people on Manus Island are hostile to asylum seekers, then presumably Australians could also be hostile, given the right conditions?

 

And if you are arguing that most refugees are hard working then we don't have to worry about any form of control over who comes in, whether refugee, asylum seeker, or anybody else. Control over entry is irrelevant and irrational. Let them all in. We will never reach the same piston as on Manus Island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone employing someone whose visa has a 'no work' clause faces stiff penalties, and the visa holder could face deportation. So offering a refugee whose visa prohibits work would be potentially setting them up for a horrible situation and/or putting them in an awkward position.

Of course parley knows that. He simply doesn't care.

 

Its just one of many straw man arguments that reffo bashers like to use to make up for the lack of an actual argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the people on Manus Island are hostile to asylum seekers, then presumably Australians could also be hostile, given the right conditions?

 

And if you are arguing that most refugees are hard working then we don't have to worry about any form of control over who comes in, whether refugee, asylum seeker, or anybody else. Control over entry is irrelevant and irrational. Let them all in. We will never reach the same piston as on Manus Island.

brain fart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...