West Papua – asylum seekers and lessons from our history

Jan 20, 2006

West Papua – asylum seekers and lessons from our history

The arrival in Australia of 43 asylums seekers from West Papua not only provides a test of whether there has been any substantive culture change in the Immigration Department, it also provides the best prospect for a long time of some significant public attention being paid to what is happening in West Papua.

Despite some extreme control measures put in place by DIMIA to prevent photographs or contact with the asylum seekers, there are some good aerial photos and description on the website of the Torres News (link found through subscriber email of www.crikey.com.au), as well as some information on the people aboard the asylum seeker’s outrigger canoe.

The information crackdown suggests the Immigration ‘culture change’ hasn’t got very far yet, as does the news that the asylum seekers are being sent to Christmas Island, an action which has great public cost, but no practical effect other than making it as difficult as possible for anyone – legal advisors, friends, media – to access the asylum seekers.

As the handling of Chen Yonglin’s request for political asylum showed last year, the Foreign Affairs Department has an even less inspiring culture than DIMIA when it comes to basic rights, so it will be important to keep the public spotlight on the West Papuans so ‘political sensitivities’ regarding Indonesia don’t get in the way of natural justice.

I wrote about West Papua a couple of times on my old blog site in May last year – here and here – and have spoken on it publicly on other occasions over the years.

I believe the current Indonesian government has done a very good job in advancing democracy and human rights in that country in the face of some very difficult challenges. Indeed I’ve been sufficiently positive about them as to cop a little bit of flack from some human rights advocates. But regardless of how difficult the challenges facing the Indonesian administration are, the stark fact still remains that there are serious human rights abuses continuing to be inflicted on West Papuans by some in the Indonesian military.

This cannot be ignored – whether for the 43 asylum seekers, or just as importantly for those who remain directly at risk in West Papua. As this article from last year by Alan Ramsey shows, the political sensitivities in being seen to highlight this fact extends to the ALP just as much to the Coalition. Labor’s overriding concern about relations with the Indonesian administration was key in Australia’s cowardly acquiescence to years of abuses and slaughter occurring in East Timor – coincidently reported in some detail again in today’s papers.

The Torres News piece also quotes a representative of the Australian West Papua Association saying “the sea journey was undertaken because the usual means of escaping the Province of West Papua – namely crossing the land border into Papua New Guinea – has become increasingly difficult as Indonesian authorities crack down on the practice.”

This would seem to be confirmed by this report from 2004 on the website of the West Papuan Action Network in Canada, which gives a first hand account of one such escape:

“These days, the only possible escape route to PNG these days is by sea. For the past four years the land borders have been heavily guarded by the Indonesian army. And since 2001, there have been many mysterious shootings in the border zone.”

Whilst I’ve been very critical about the current government putting their own political priorities ahead of the risks of persecution faced by individuals, it is worth acknowledging that this is a common theme among Australian governments stretching back decades.

There is a book by historian, Klaus Neumann, called “Refuge Australia: Australia’s Humanitarian Record” which goes into this history in some details.

Indeed,the arrival of 43 West Papua asylum seekers highlights the importance of remembering historical lessons about refugees from West Papua and the key role they played in the history of Australian responses to uninvited asylum seekers and the situations they flee.

For example try these quotes from Klaus Neumann:

Refugees were housed on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea ‘as a temporary answer to an uncomfortable problem’ and the refugees were ‘isolated by security and disconsolately viewing an impossible future’.

These quotes come from an article that was published in 1969 concerning fifty-nine refugees from West Papua, who fled to Papua and New Guinea between 1966 and 1968. According to Neumann, in late 1968, the Territory’s Australian administration moved these refugees to Manus to prevent them from participating in anti-Indonesian politics in Papua and New Guinea. They were required to live in the accommodation provided for them, but they were not housed behind barbed wire. They lived in houses rather than in shipping containers, were allowed to seek employment and their children attended government or mission schools.

Another instructive quote comes from a directive to his Department by the Attorney-General in response to possible asylum claims by West Papuans: “(we) should not be too infected with the British notion of being a home for the oppressed” – not the current Attorney-General, but one from 1962, Sir Garfield Barwick (later to become Chief Justice of the High Court, just to make it even better).

This was at a time when Papua New Guinea was an Australian Territory, and West Papuans refugees were fleeing directly into PNG. Even though PNG was part of Australia, residents there had no automatic entitlement to enter mainland Australia (and were unlikely to get permission in the days when the White Australia policy still operated), so any West Papuan refugees who were accepted would only be able to stay in PNG. Despite this, considerations regarding our relationship with Indonesia and the worry of a potential wave of refugees into PNG were as strong then as now. (As Australia was aware of the persecution being inflicted on West Papuans even then, it’s not surprising there was a worry that there could be large numbers of refugees)

Unlike now, Australia did not actually have any legal obligation to West Papuan asylum seekers at that time, as we had not ratified the Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention. The original 1951 Convention only applied to people who had become refugees as a result of events prior to 1951. The Optional Protocol – extending the operation of the Convention to current events – came into force in 1967, but Australia did not ratify it until 1973, in large part because of its implications in Papua.

For more details on this history, read this article by Neumann from 2002, or his evidence last year to the Senate Committee inquiry into the Chen Yonglin defection (start from page 40)

For even greater detail, this link (large pdf file) goes to a lecture given in 2002 by Klaus Neumann. The lecture is entitled “Refugees on Our Doorstep: West Papuan Refugees in Papua and New
Guinea, 1962–69“. It’s 12 pages long, but I think it’s well worth a read. Knowing our history can play a big role in informing what actions should or shouldn’t be taken in the future.

53 Comments, Comment or Ping

Dan Hill

You would think we would have learned our lesson by now in terms of appeasing the Indonesians. Look where 25 years of turning the other way on East Timor ended up. There’s a hardheartedness in the current government (and especially the PM) which makes me sick and embarrassed as an Aussie.

Jan 20th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

I agree with Dan but I was pleased to read that the good folk of Wiepa took food, clothes, toys and blankets and kindness to the refugees before they were hustled off like criminals.

Seeing even little children dragged around with their faces covered with coats like mass murderers should make any normal person sick to their stomachs after what we all saw DIMIA do to even a little baby born in Australia on 30 December 2004 in the middle of the night.

DIMIA will never change no matter how many times they allow Metcalfe to be interviewed by their toady journalists.

$700 + per person per day on Christmas Island. And DIMIA and lawyers will cost a fortune.

The 53 Vietnamese who spent 2 years on that hell hole cost taxpayers over $50 million and they were refugees all along.

love the comments by the Cairns Chamber of Commerce boss though – the government has to crack down and lock them up because they should have gone to New Guinea.

Except they can’t can they? No more than Hazaras can safely stay in Pakistan or Bedoons in Syria or Palestinians dumped in Thailand.

Jan 20th, 2006
Geoff

Andrew why have they been sent to Christmas island? Isn’t there a facility closer that could have been used?

Jan 20th, 2006
Evil Pundit

Look where 25 years of turning the other way on East Timor ended up.

It ended up with John Howard having the moral courage and political clout to liberate the people of East Timor.

Of course, that strained our relations with Indonesia, and even contributed to terrorist attacks in Bali that left hundreds dead, including dozens of Australians.

There is a price to pay for every noble action.

Now you want to start us on the same road to liberation in Papua as was followed in East Timor. First the refugees who continue their political activism locally, then the publicity campaigns, then the international campaigns, and finally the international military confrontation at gunpoint, on the brink of war.

Do you know the price of your noble impulses? Are you prepared to pay the price? Are you willing to start a war?

Jan 20th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

Geoff

There are facilities in Sydney (Villawood), Melbourne (Maribyrnong) and Port Augusta (Baxter) all of which are much cheaper and better equipped.

One can only assume Christmas Island has been chosen because it is much more inaccessible for media, legal advisors and friends and supporters. Not a good sign of rational public policy, apart from the culture change issue, as far as I’m concerned.

However, unlike the 7 or so from West Timor who were recently shunted over to Christmas Island as well, I think the specific nature of this group is such that they won;t be easily forgotten and there will be penty of people in contact with them anyway – it will just be more of an expense and pain in the neck all round.

EP – John Howard has a better record to point to than the Labor Party on this (or even Malcolm Fraser for that mattter), but saying he “liberated the people of East Timor” is still a bit of a stretch.

Somehow, I think there is a middle path between Australians (a) turning a blind eye to decades of killings and abuses and (b) starting a war. Even elements of the Indonesian government have been trying to find such a path, but some elements of the military are less than keen on it.

You may be right at the end of it all, but it’s pretty poor if we don’t even have a go at finding that middle path.

Jan 20th, 2006
Evil Pundit

There is a middle path, and John Howard trod it. I have heard from veterans of East Timor that Indonesian and Australian troops were pointing their guns at each other when the INTERFET force landed — it came very close to war as it was.

I’m glad you acknowledge that Australian, or even American, governments can’t just wave a magic wand and liberate people. Some commenters seem to think we should live in a world where everything is fairy floss and niceness, but real politics eventually must involve compromises if it’s to be effective.

The question our government faces now is whether it should turn itself into a propaganda base for an anti-Indonesian faction at a time when relations between our countries are already strained, or if there is a better way to achieve the best possible outcome. This is something the Marilyn Shepherds of the world will never understand.

Jan 20th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Evil Pundit – what a twit you are. Bush, Blair and Howard are the ones who thought they could wave a magic wand called the biggest army in the world against no army in one of the poorest countries of the world and bring about liberty.

Instead they have spent 100’s of billions, killed 100,000 civilians and thousands of soldiers,
destroyed Iraq for the next century and then taken the resources.

Don’t dare speak about waving wands of libery mate. As for the West Papuans – according to history 8,000 Australians were housed in Merouke in the second war and the Papuans didn’t lock them up.

As for facilities on the mainland here is what I don’t get.

Perhaps you can help us Andrew. 100’s of Indonesian illegal fishermen are flown to Port Augusta from Darwin for committing the “crime” of catching “our” sharks before we can, they have lawyers and get a trial.

Refugees don’t.

Jan 20th, 2006
Geoff

Hey EP… you’re a twit… not to worry… I’m a prat.
Apparently.
I consider myself in good company then.

BTW Marilyn the 100,000 figure in Lancet was proven wrong a long time ago. But give the Insurgents half a chance and I’m sure they’ll get it up there. Talk about a regurgitator of Left-wing propaganda. I bet you read Chomsky.

Andrew, I’d have thought that too. Re the mainland facilities.

Jan 20th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Geoff have you ever in your life spoken to an Iraqi human being to get the real story of casualties in Iraq? Have you seen their liberty?

Jan 21st, 2006
Geoff

Marilyn, what are you on about?
Have I mentioned anything about liberty?
No.
Did I support going to war in Iraq?
No.
All I’ve done is point out your problems with accuracy and name-calling.

You continue on with emotive claptrap.
Not a very effective method of argument.
I note your method is the same wherever you go, and the complaints all echo my observations.

Try this, maybe you’ll develop a bit of balance and understanding…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700017.html

The sooner the Insurgency stops and they stop killing innocent Iraqis the sooner we can all get out of there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060201098.html

Jan 21st, 2006
Graeme Hastwell

Geoff.

The `Lancet’ estimate of 98,000 civilian deaths in Iraq to September 2004 has never been proven wrong. Numerous claims have been made to this effect, but I have found none that are sustainable. I have posted more on this on the “Yet another ‘core’ promise” thread at Webdiary with further posts to come.

Jan 21st, 2006
Geoff

I suggest you take a look at their methodology then Graeme.

Jan 21st, 2006
Geoff

Just in case you don’t have “time”.

The Lancet study relied on a door-to-door survey of Iraqi households in 33 neighborhoods. The surveyors asked for details of deaths in the months before and after the invasion and found a significantly higher death rate after. But the approach was flawed. War is not like a pandemic; it comes in pockets. And the study itself qualified its conclusions, acknowledging that the figure could range enormously between 8,000 and 194,000.

Basically it was a guess based on a floored premise. Many, many people have come to the same conclusion about it… including them.

Jan 21st, 2006
Graeme Hastwell

Geoff – your first two sentences in post 14 are correct, the third is not. As you acknowledge, war causes death that tends to be very patchy – one household in a street may be severely affected while their neighbours escape unscathed. One village may be razed while surrounding villages suffer little damage. This presents an enormous challenge when trying to make statistical inference, and this is reflected in the broad confidence interval. However, it does not mean that the approach is faulty. It definitely does not mean that the Roberts et al (in Lancet) estimate was “a guess based on a flawed premise”. You state that the authors came to this conclusion – please provide evidence.

Cheers, Graeme

Jan 21st, 2006
Graeme Hastwell

The first two sentences in the second paragraph of post 14, to be more precise.

Jan 22nd, 2006
Geoff

Well Graeme you’ve obviously got a copy of it somewhere…. if you can’t see why the methodology is flawed, then I don’t think anything I say will change that.

But…the study itself qualified its conclusions, acknowledging that the figure could range enormously between 8,000 and 194,000. That’s a hell of a range or margin for error Graeme. Hence my last point.

Jan 22nd, 2006
Graeme Hastwell

Geoff. I feel this is getting too far off topic to debate at length here. Please look at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1159#comment-44580 to read my arguments. I’ve got links there to the Lancet paper if you want to download a copy.

Jan 22nd, 2006
Sydneyrefugee

They had to have their identity covered to protect themselves. If they are for real then having their identity displayed for the world to see would endanger the lives of their family.

Christmas Island seems a bit odd but if they are safe why would they complain? They must not have had proper papers or else they would be admitted into regular society. Also not sure even if they want to stay here, maybe just be moved to PNG. Only single adult males will be in detention. They seem to be in some degree of danger so silence surronds the, sounds like it is for their benefit.

They may or may not want to have contact with the media, however seeking aslyum is not the same as seeking an audience. Seems selfish for people wanting to use alsyum seekers for their own political ends. Is this why you want them to have access to media, for your own agenda? Exactly what did they run from?

Amanda Vanstone told the Indonesian government that they would not be returned until a full investigation is undertaken. Sounds fair to me.

Everything sounds fair up to now. They are actual boat people, not part of an sophicated travel agency. They seem to be actually escaping from rather than arriving to. I can’t see any problem at all.

If they are held longer than necessary to determin all facts and have necesary health checks and identity checks then we have a problem. Until then your spouting is irresponsible as a minister in Australia. Your primary role is for the safety and security of Australians. A brief detention is a small way to ensure that at the same time giving them an opportunity to find a sanctuary.

I am against long detention, but up to a few months is about the same amount of time anyone has to go through waiting for the immigration process from outside the country.

Jan 22nd, 2006
Wendy Lewthwaite

hi Sydneyrefugee . Thanks that sounds fair to me. What many do not know is its because these people arrive with no papers and no proof of where they came from is why it takes long periods of time to sort them. Many refuse to say where they came from for reasons you raised.So we are dammed if we do and likewise. Also look at that poor guy from China that we sold down the stream. Who would trust any Goverment .Perhaps Cathey Bannister might because shes the type that is conditioned to make judgemnts without all the facts.

Jan 22nd, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Gee Sydney refugee, what on earth do 20 million people have to be afraid of as they continue to breach human rights laws, the migration act and the refugee convention to keep 43 people out?

As to the privacy issue it is amazing how that comes up only when DIMA are embarrassed and not otherwise isnt’ it?

No asylum seekers ever have to be locked up, they haven’t done anything wrong for heavens sake.

And Geoff, on the issue of Iraqi deaths – why were any deaths at the hands of the coalition of the killing acceptable? What on earth has been proved and what would we say if upwards of 100,000 Aussies had been killed for no reason?

Jan 22nd, 2006
Geoff

Sydneyref… meet Marilyn.

The coalition of the killing eh… no you’re not biased, you don’t exaggerate, vilify, etc, etc, etc… just blame 20 million Australians for anything you can think of. Which would only be stuff related to refugees. Ever consider helping out your fellow Australians Marilyn?

Your posts keep poining to mindless regurgitation of Leftist propaganda Marilyn. Emotive claptrap adds nothing to the debate, I’d have thought you’d have learnt that by now.

You claims laws have been broken Andrew says they haven’t. Which one of you is right? I await your court case.

Jan 22nd, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

Geoff

I can understand why people get emotional about the issue if they have witnessed the damage done to people as a result of the way this issue has been handled. However, I agree with you that getting overly emotional or overstating the situation in making the case doesn’t usually help change people’s minds.

I should clarify that I don’t think the government has broken any laws on this occasion with the West Papuans, but I think they clearly have in the past. They have lost enough High Court cases to back this assertion up, let alone the celebarted cases like Cornelia Rau and Vivienne Solon which haven’t been tuled on by a court but prima facie seem to be a clear breach or at best a serious misinterpretation of the law.

However, the bigger problem is the law itself, which really allows this sort of unnecessary injustice (and expense) to be continually inflicted. Immigration law is undoubtedly always going to be a difficult area which will always have unhappy cases, but we could still have a much fairer and more coherent law whilst avoiding the ‘open door’ approach that is always put forward as the only alternative to the current Act.

Jan 22nd, 2006
Geoff

I agree with you there Andrew. Immigration is a mess.

Like tax it needs someone to go through it with a fine tooth comb and simplify it.

Jan 22nd, 2006
Hissiera Khan

I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who felt their heart break to see little kids frogmarched away with their heads covered. I screamed at the television, “Not again you bastards!” much to the amusement of my kids who, by the grace of God, I pray will never be in that situation. There can not have been one person watching who would doubt that these people were refugees. It wasn’t as if they were trying to enter without being caught – they had a bloody great banner, IN ENGLISH, above their boat! They could have been quietly allowed in, given safe houses, and the Indonesian military need never have known.

Speaking of DIMIA, what about the whole 140 seats of a plane booked deport one Turkish fellow back to Kurdistan? Let’s hear it for efficiency. Gosh, Australia really didn’t want him here that badly! Wonder whether they got a bulk discount?

Here we are, taxed to the eyebrows so that DIMIA can spend like a sieve just to rescue us from a couple of swarthy chaps who dared ask for help, and all the while public schools, universities, hospitals and infrastructure rot.

Just a thought, but if DIMIA is sloshing around that much money, there’s scope for someone to be on the take. Might be something for someone with an investigative bent to look at.

Jan 22nd, 2006
Wendy Lewthwaite

Mrs Khan
Ever thought that the kids were frogmarched away for their own safety? and that of their family back home? Also the Government do not send the media out job for job.Some people who come here to live are actually grateful for our wonderful open hearts. Lets face it we could not go over there and get benefits the same as a local could we?I was reading a site the other day on a iaslamic group in Melbourne. For Australia day they are having a bbq[At least some things rub off] What annoyed me was that they were only inviting muslims. I know because i wrote to them.This is NOT the Ausie way.How dare they try to split our soceity.OUR COUNTRY That OUR family fought to protect. Then they went on to say it was time the Islamic stood up and demanded that they were treated the same as Ausies? Very funny.When people are allowed to live in another country[ wherever that might be] they should show respect and be grateful. This lot have excepted our kind ways yet still regect us. This is simply low. I have many muslim friends by the way. The government made a big mistake by asking us to fund different schools etc. My dear lady we are not such bad people but as an Ausie i am sick of everything we do being bagged. I think you will find those poor kids you speak of were being protected from their Id being swept all over the place. Please consider bringing you kids up to love this country and respect this country.Not scream things out like that in front of them. Children learn from their parents love understanding tolerance and kindness or suspicioun and hatered.I take it you dont wish to live anywhere else? Think about it. I would take a guess and say Australia has been good to you.

Jan 26th, 2006
Floss

(apologies for a quite long comment)

Wendy you say “Children learn from their parents love, understanding, tolerance and kindness or suspicion and hatred.”

Well yes they do but they also learn from the way they and their parents are treated by the society they are in and the people who make up that society.

The views you express are neither understanding nor kind. You seem to be tolerant only as long as those who come here are willing to behave and live their lives exactly as you say and display the utmost gratitude for the way they are treated as well as show respect for people like you regardless of what you choose to say about them.

That’s not tolerance. Nor is it compassionate or kind and its definitly not understanding.

What it is is jackboot fanaticism that demands total subservience – or they can just go back to where they came from.

This is the sort of stuff that my family was confronted with when we arrived in Australia in the late sixties – and we were asked to come here!!)

It made life unbearable for my brothers and me, not so much because of the children we mixed with but because of their parents’ attitudes to us. One of my brothers did return ‘home’ mainly because of it. The rest of us learnt to speak English with an Australian accent, gave up bringin ‘our foods’ to school for lunch and ate vegemite and cold meat pies even though it made us gag. I learnt to look the other way when shop assistants made fun of my mother’s accent or ‘funny ways’ and blame the embarrassment on her, rather than the ignorant prats who mocked her. We even put up with having our names changed for us so we would be more ‘normal’.

The really confusing thing for us was the whole white Australian ideal. We looked at these people from our tall, blonde, very pale skinned perspective, out of our blue blue eyes and thought what the hell are you lot on about??

But we were lucky – we could change ourselves to become ‘real’ Aussies. A lot of our friends were not so lucky – you can change your accent but you can’t change your skin colour.

Over the years Australians did begin to learn true tolerance and acceptance and started to embrace the very best from all the various cultures whose peoples have come to these shores. Exemplified best perhaps by the large ‘Aussie’ attendance at my mother’s funeral some years ago – she never changed but they did and they learnt to appreciate and love her for who she was and what she brought to their lives, not for what they originally thought she ought to be. And my, did they enjoy the traditional food and cakes served up afterwards! :-)

The turn of the tide back to intolerance, cultural divisiveness and racism is frightening and watching it being encouraged by a government for its own short term political gain is sickening.

To suggest that anyone who comes here seeking asylum (a legal action under international law) and is then treated – quite frankly – like a piece of shit, should be grateful and show respect is mind boggling. The fact that the vast majority actually do so makes me cringe and feel ashamed.

Even though it was a long time ago I remember clearly how very hard it was to pack up and come to a new country and start a new life. We were not refugees; we were convinced to come here under the government’s migration policy at the time. We were able to fly in with all our belongings and as a family. Yet I remember the fear, the strangeness, the loneliness, the hostility from the ‘natives’ clearly. It made all of us wary and careful and we still are.

What must it be like to have to fight your way here under extreme danger and hardship, leaving behind family, friends and everything you own, living in fear of being caught, not knowing if you will see your husband, wife children ever again? And to be treated like a criminal and placed in detention sometimes for years when you get here? What effect does that have on the children that arrive here under those circumstances?

And no Wendy it’s not their parents fault for bringing them here. Most parents will move heaven and earth to find a place of safety and security for their children. A place where they can live free from fear and grow up to achieve their full potential – something that can only benefit this country.

I want Australia to be that place – the fact that people like you support it not being so shames us all.

Jan 26th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Here we go again. This is an interview Ruddock did with the ABC on 28 September 2005 after hearing that Roqia had been confirmed as an Afghan citizen before her deportation. Evidence has now been received from DIMIA that the minister was told in writing on 27 December that just bit more time was required. Ruddock’s response is instructive because he says, rightly, that there was never a question that Roqia was an Afghan.

For the so-called Pakistani verification I suggest gentle readers visit

http://www.indymedia.org.au

and see how Ali Ashgar Bakhtiyari DOB 1961 was deemed by DIMIA to be Asghar Ali DOB 1957 and Asghar Ali DOB 1971 by Pakistan embassy in Canberra – all without him ever applying.

Read how they used a legal birth certificate to turn an Afghan/Australian baby into a supposed Pakistani citizen and ask how they could do something so evil to this woman who was always telling the truth.

Details of my investigations have all been verified through Paul McGeoughs investigations in Afghanistan and DIMIA who replied to Senator Kirk on Wednesday “Mrs Bakhtiyari is considered a Pakistani due to her marriage.”

What a farce for all you out there in voter land determined to hate and demonise this family. I suggest you read carefully to the first interview Ali ever did in Australia and then ask just why Ruddock said years later that the poor man had never confessed to be in Pakistan.

“Now let me just deal with the Bakhtiari issue – it’s not my issue,
but the question generally in relation to asylum issues – which is
what you are examining – is, do people who are in Australia have
an entitlement to our protection; such that they should not be
returned – the word in the Refugee Convention is referred to a
situation where they will be persecuted.
Now, essentially, you not only have to look at the question as to
whether or not it is safe for a person to return to their country of
origin, you also have to look at whether or not they have any
other place in which they are entitled to live, where they would
have been safe.
And the issue in relation to this particular family is the same as it
is in relation to anybody else – it’s not a question of where you
were born; what other entitlements you may have where you
would be at risk, in other words, it’s not a question, and it never
was a question as to whether or not somebody may have come
from Afghanistan; been born in Afghanistan; I think my
recollection is that it was never questioned that Mrs Bakhtiari may
have, may have been Afghan.
The argument always was, and it was accepted by those who
made the decisions, that the family had a, an entitlement to reside
safely in Pakistan, and an entitlement to return to Pakistan. And
they did.
So this question of whether or not they had an additional
entitlement to go back to Afghanistan, is a non-issue.
QUESTION: [Inaudible] it wouldn’t have made a difference, is that what you’re
saying?
Attorney-General Transcript

RUDDOCK: Well, I’m saying it was never questioned as far as I recall, that Mrs
Bakhtiari may have been born in Afghanistan. The issue, the issue
was, could the family, having been found not to be refugees, be
returned safely to Pakistan, and they were.
And, that was based upon something that, if I read the story
correctly, is still something that hasn’t been clarified. Mr
Bakhtiari, it is not claimed, was Afghan. And the view always
was that, that he was from Quetta, in Belochistan in Pakistan. He
may have well married somebody who, who wasn’t Pakistani,
who was Afghan, may well have.
But in terms of where they could return safely, Pakistan was
always the option. They returned to Pakistan, and now it’s said
they’re living in Afghanistan, and to all intents and purposes, they
went there voluntarily, and that would suggest to me they’d come
to a view that they could return there safely.
Alright?
QUESTION: Paul Boylan said this morning that the Bakhtiari family and
[inaudible] legislation, and both parties should be offered entry
back into Australia. What do you say to that?
RUDDOCK: Well, I’d simply say you’re wrong. And, I mean they’re not,
they’re not matters in which I would put together. Mr Parkin
received an adverse security assessment, and that was based upon
ASIO’s responsibility to protect the Australian community from
politically motivated violence.
And I’ve dealt with that issue before, but I mean that was the
background to the decision. The visa was cancelled and he had no
lawful entitlement to remain here, and he was removed.
The Bakhtiari’s did not receive an adverse security assessment.
They came without lawful authority – in other words without a
visa – and they were entitled to make a claim for protection, and
they did.
And those protection claims didn’t stand up to scrutiny. They
were found not to be refugees. They were [inaudible] removed
from Australia.
And, if you, if you are in Australia without a valid visa, then if we
can remove people safely, that will be the outcome, and it’s what
happened in both cases. The decisions were lawful, and if people
want to challenge – in the Bakhtiari’s case I might say, they did,
they challenged the decisions over and over again, at very
considerable cost, to every court that they could get access to –
and without commenting on Mr Parkin’s matter, I understand he
may be seeking a review of some of those decisions, and he’s
Attorney-General Transcript

CHAIR (Senator Crossin)—Mr Bitel, this week witnesses have claimed that there are cultural problems in DIMIA—that there is a culture of concealment and cover-up. We have heard that it is a cumbersome, inefficient and ineffective system. Mr Palmer himself found that many of the DIMIA officers who were interviewed and who had used the detention powers under section 189 of the act had little understanding of what, in legal terms, constitutes reasonable suspicion when applying it to a factual situation. In fact, we have heard very little that is positive about DIMIA this week, I have to say. I noticed this morning on Sky News that facts have come to light about the Bakhtiyari family. I do not want to go into the merits of the case, but I would be interested in your comments about the culture in DIMIA. I have been trying this week to get a handle on how it is that it takes so many years to come to a conclusion about people and how in some cases, as in this morning’s news, they get it so wrong.

Jan 28th, 2006
Geoff

“I think my recollection is that it was never questioned that Mrs Bakhtiari may have, may have been Afghan.
The argument always was, and it was accepted by those who made the decisions, that the family had a, an entitlement to reside safely in Pakistan, and an entitlement to return to Pakistan. And
they did.”

Since when does “may have”… mean “was” or “is”????

If they are living safely in Afghanistan or Pakistan, there obviously isn’t a need for a protection visa now is there.

Jan 28th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Geoff – you are a fool. The government always knew she was an Afghan and kept her locked up for 4 years without cause at a cost of $6 million.

Tell me you cruel creature – it was early 2001 when she arrived with 5 young children, she said she was Afghan and that was accepted so she would have been a refugee just like every other Afghan who ever arrived here.

By your criteria every single Afghan could have gone to Pakistan but they have not. They are still here. Every one of them except Roqia and her brother, husband, children and friend from her village.

A quote from DIMIA from Wednesday “Roqia and her children were advised to be Pakistani citizens based on their relationship to Mr Bakhtiyari”.

OK let’s look at that. Every person I am related to in England, Wales, Germany, France, Ireland and Scotland would be Australian by that criteria. Every person who ever married an Australian would be automatically Australian.

What? They aren’t? Well then I rest my case and I want you to consider this Geoff. I know the family, I ate with the family, played with the family, talked to the family. They are all Afghan citizens and always were and as such they cannot possibly be Pakistani citizens. Why don’t you go and have a look at the Pakistan High Commission website in Canberra and read what it says about old NIC numbers and try and explain to us all how the Pakistani government refuses to accept old NIC numbers but in one case alone in all the world they accepted an unsigned application form from 1975 from someone who is not even an Hazara and allow that to be Ali Bakhtiyari who is an Hazara.

Explain then how come there are two family trees from the same house with different ID numbers and ages and explain how come the RRT member threw out the photo in August 2003 as not the applicant.

And explain how you would feel if you had to hold a 6 year old girl who asked you to shoot her after nearly 4 years in detention being tear gassed, seeing her uncle slashed to bits, her parents going insane, her brothers trying to kill themselves and then ask why would the government keep her locked up when they knew on 22 March 2001 that she was an Afghan – she stayed locked up for nearly 4 years after that. Not one day free and she was always telling the truth.

Did you read the full report in the SMH that Paul McGeough filed? The Afghan government gave him the documentation that Roqia and the kids were Afghans. That is why Ruddock said there was never a question that she was an Afghan.

Because she is. As for living safely. Let me see. 13 % of Afghans have clean water. 70% are malnourished. 25% of all children under 5 die. Mazhar was born in Australia.

Give me a break Geoff and explain why you feel the need to be so hateful of a family who did nothing wrong.

Come on. What did they ever do to you? What did they do to 20 million Australians that they feel the need to persecute them even when they are not here? Why were they dumped in Pakistan on documents that were illegal? The baby boy nearly died of cold you know.

They were refugees when they arrived here mate. Just like every other Afghan who is now a permanent resident because Afghanistan is too dangerous.

Amanda Vanstone was told that in writing before the family were deported to Pakistan.

Jan 28th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

THE FAMILY

Ali Asqar Bakhtiyari fled Afghanistan in 1998 after being imprisoned and tortured by the Taliban, his wife Roqia and five oldest children followed in late 1998. They resided in a smugglers hotel in Rawalipindi, Pakistan until Ali was forced to leave due to their illegal status in Pakistan and there was not enough money to bring the entire family.

At the hands of the smugglers he was brought to Australia via Indonesia after being told he would be taken to Germany. He was taken to Port Hedland as YUL 36 where he remained from October 1999 until August 2000 when he was released on a TPV and immediately applied for a permanent visa.

At all material times Ali named his wife Roqia born about 1968 or 69, his children Alamdar DOB 1988, Montezar 1989, Nagina 1991, Samina 1994 and Amina 1997. Never did he seek to lie about their whereabouts, he told the department they were in the Pake Hotel in Rawalipindi.

On his release he was distressed because he had lost contact with them. During his entry visa interviews, as outlined by Giles Short in the RRT decision of 25 August 2003 he said he was 38 years old which would make his birth year 1961.

His protection visa states 1961 for the purposes of his identification in Australia.

Roqia, her brother Mazhar Ali and the five older children arrived on the Zillmere on 15 January 2001 at Ashmore Reef and were admitted to Woomera on 23 January.

She was denied a visa based on a language analysis test from Eqvator which the RRT member Genevieve Hamilton deemed inconclusive and Hamilton deemed Roqia and the children to be stateless.

All of these facts were agreed in the case of s 134 of the High Court which Roqia lost in February 2003.

Contrary to what the department and the minister continually claim this case s 134 of the High court did not decide that Roqia was not a refugee and it did not decide she was from Pakistan. All that was decided was that the particular application to be accepted as part of a family unit was invalid because her initial application was not for refugee status as part of a family unit.

Technically she was denied family reunion because she didn’t apply for it. She did not know Ali was in Australia, not until two days after the RRT denial so she could not. It was noted however that DIMIA did know he was in Australia and it was deemed that they did not have to tell her.

All of this is readily available and well known which makes the cancellation of Ali’s visa and the circumstances surrounding it the point of this submission.

1 THE PAKISTAN DOCUMENTS AND THEIR GENESIS

bb. First copy, which is a photo copy, was given to Ali on about 30 August 2002 along with a “family” tree with different family members than claimed and two different Pakistan National ID numbers for the person Asghar Ali, DOB 15/4/57. There are no originals of the “family” tree details that could have been translated in Australia as claimed. Glen Bush from the Sydney Visa Integrity office is the first DIMA officer associated with these documents. At least 100 others were at some stage, as enclosed.
cc. Second copy was received from Mr John Caspersson, Compliance officer in Islamabad on 15 October and is a digital copy. It is different because the photo graph is slightly smaller and is in a different position on the page. The translation has 13 dot points while the “original” has only 12. The translation says the address is Isa Khan Road and the word under dot 11 is omitted. I noticed those basic facts immediately.
dd. A different photo was sent to Dr Robin Watt in October for a facial mapping exercise. I claim it is different because in spite of claims that it was taken from the Pakistan document it was in fact taken of someone else at a different time. It has flash spots in the eyes while those on the Pakistan national ID application forms do not. There is also an emblem on the tie that is not on the other photos.

This document or series of documents were used to cancel Ali’s visa and in December 2002, before the application for Roqia had been decided, and he was imprisoned in Villawood.

In the first MRT application for a bridging visa Ali was denied because Bob Ellis went to Woomera, an unnamed lawyer in Adelaide was under investigation and his supporters had brought adverse publicity down on him. I believe this breaches the constitution but that was ignored.

The next three court hearings were titled NAFC and sought only to prevent DIMA sending Ali to Woomera. The fires on New Year’s Eve prevented it but he was sent to Baxter in January 2003, still before Roqia’s decision had been handed down.

The second MRT for a bridging visa was rejected even though Robin Hunt deemed that the case against him had not been proved.

The first RRT led by Steve Karas relied on the facial mapping exercise but the second one by Giles Short rejected it as unsafe on 25 August 2003. I believe that having rejected the photo as being unsafe as the applicant, Short should not have relied on the documents at any time. Ultimately Ali was refused again based only on the media reports by Skelton and Benns in the Fairfax Media, none of which were ever examined.

After the release of the children all the court cases for Ali were played out in public and were all for the purpose of having some court understand that he was not the person in the Pakistan documents and never had been, that it was a fraud. These cases were SHJB and STKB which are available on the Federal Court website.

On May 26 2004 Jim Williams of Compliance presented a letter to the Federal Court stating that the Bakhtiyari family had been deemed by the Pakistani government to be from Pakistan. This is 9 months after the RRT had discarded the photo ID from Pakistan as unsafe.

A letter claiming Mazhar was a Pakistani national was used again on 13 December 2004 in the High Court hearing before Justice Hayne who did not accept that it had any meaning for the purposes of the family’s nationality. Indeed it is well known now that he deemed the parents to be “arguably Afghan citizens”.

On 30 December we know the family were illegally deported to Pakistan where they were denied even a hotel room in a slum city and are now home in Afghanistan.

What was not known during this public struggle was the behaviour of certain compliance and policing officers in-house and that is what I will now deal with.

JIM WILLIAMS AND COMPLIANCE

Sometime before 2 July 2003 an Australian Certificate of Identity was made for Asghar Ali, DOB 15/4/1957 with Ali Asqar Bakhtiyari’s visa photograph attached to it.

On 28 July it was sent by Jim Williams of Compliance with several documents to the Pakistan Embassy in Canberra for verification.

He enclosed:

11. A copy of the Pakistan National ID Card application and family tree with another different photo. It is different because of the size, the left eye and the tie has a spot on the top unlike the other two. He included a different translation, also a 13 point for a 12 point document, the word Matrick is included and other details are different. The name of the street is now spelt Essa Khan Road
12. Application forms for Pakistani passports for Roqia and Asghar Ali, undated and unsigned. I know they were done by DIMA due to the sequencing of numbers in the top right hand corner, and the writing is all the same. Again Asghar Ali is deemed to have been born in 1957. Williams claimed that the Australian government had deemed the family to be Pakistan nationals.

On 19 August Julie Keenan from DIMA sent a letter to Mr John Young demanding that Roqia fill in application forms for her deportation even though she also stated that Roqia was ill with complications of her pregnancy. She further stated that Roqia was the spouse of a Pakistan national, not that she was a Pakistan national.

The 3rd October Julie Keenan sent a letter to the Pakistan Embassy asking for travel documents. This was just 12 days before the birth of Mazhar Mehdi, and 6 weeks after Giles Short had discarded the Pakistan photo as unsafe. Other documents show that DIMIA had meetings with the Pakistan High Commissioner on 26 September claiming Roqia was only 32 weeks pregnant and fit to travel.

8 December Mr Khazandar of the Pakistan Embassy sent a chart of confirmation for several people for their Pakistan nationality. Only one is still shown. It says

ASGHAR ALI
S/O HASAN ALI
DOB 1971
NIC NO. 601-57-188722

It included the Australian document numbers of Roqia and the five older children.

10 December Julie Keenan wrote to the Pakistan Embassy requesting separate letters for those deemed to be from Pakistan.

11 December Mr Khanzadar of the Pakistan Embassy sent a letter to Karen Dundas referring to the letter from Julie Keenan stating that the family were Pakistani nationals.

I can not and will not believe that Julie Keenan and others did not notice that the letter of confirmation claimed that Asghar Ali, the person they had always claimed was older than his age of 38 upon arrival in 1999, was in fact 14 years younger. The national ID number is the same as one of the National ID numbers they had used on the Pakistani documents to have Ali’s visa cancelled, but that was for a man born in 1957.

It is impossible that Julie Keenan did not notice the difference.

However, on January 13 2004 Narelle Lee wrote to Mr Khazandar stating that Mazhar Mehdi had been born on 15 October 2003 and sent a Certificate of Identity to have him added to the first letter.

21 January 2004 Jeremy Moore, lawyer for the children sent to Amanda Vanstone a series of documents from Afghanistan saying that Roqia and her husband and family were all from Afghanistan.

5 February 2004, Narelle Lee rang Mr Wali at the Pakistan Embassy regarding that follow up letter for Mazhar.

6 February Narelle Lee wrote to Mr Khanzadar and attached a copy of Mazhar Mehdi’s birth certificate. You will note it says Roqia and Ali were from Shahrestan, Afghanistan and had married there in 1987, which would have made Ali just 16 according to the Pakistan confirmation.

6 February 2004 Jim Williams informed Jeremy Moore that the family had been confirmed to be Pakistanis and sent both of the purported letters. He confirmed receipt of the Afghan documents for Roqia and said they were being translated..

6 February 2004 Mr Khazandar sent another letter to Narelle Lee stating that Mazhar was a Pakistani but he was the son of Asghar Ali Bakhtiari rather than the son of Asghar Ali.

24 May 2004 Jim Williams sent a copy of the letters to the Federal Court as a means of denying the children their freedom and as proof they were from Pakistan. He also sent an affidavit stating that Mazhar Ali had been deported to Pakistan on Australia Documents and claimed that he had not ever applied for Pakistani documents.

Williams stated that Roqia and the six children could be and would be deported the same way. Williams had previously told the senate estimates committee in February 2004 that the Australian certificates of ID were not travel documents.

If the Pakistan confirmation that Asghar Ali had been born in 1971 instead of 1957 Ali would have matriculated at 4 and married Roqia at 15 or 16. I say again they are not genuine, they are not Ali Bakhtiyari and this was endorsed in June 2004 by Mr Hassan Ghulam, an expert in documents from the area and an Hazara Australian citizen.

I believe that if the compliance department under Jim Williams had ever believed that the Pakistan documents really were Ali Bakhtiyari they would have known differently as early as July 2003 when the second translation showed this illiterate farmer had matriculated. Just the fact that two different translations for the same documents exist should have been evidence enough that they were not genuine.

Other than that Kim Rosser in April 2003 had clearly outlined in another case just how the documents used were bogus, and Giles Short himself had dismissed another set in May 2003.

MEDIA COMPLICITY

26 July 2002 Matthew Benns claimed that Ali is really Asghar Ali from Quetta. This was the first occasion the name Sikander Ali was mentioned but Ali stated all along he had two brothers named Ghazanfar and Mozzafar who were in Iran and Pakistan. Benns claimed the brother said that Asghar Ali was a farmer from Oruzgan, Afghanistan.

I have asked Matthew who gave him the name Sikander and the address in Quetta but he will not reply.

2-3 August 2002 Alan Ramsay has part of the actual file and claims that Ali is either Asghar Ali or Ali Bakhtiyari or some person called Haja Ali Asighar who had been in Kuwait. He further claimed that Roqia was not really his wife and the children were pawns in the game of asylum and the game of getting a better life. DIMIA had acknowledged that she was his wife and he had already visited her in Woomera in March 2002.

14 August 2002 The Australian via Alistair McLeod in northern Oruzgan claim that Ali was not known in his home. I have seen and read the map
Ali drew for the journalists and they were at least 110 k north of the position Ali had claimed. The editorials in the Australian and local Messenger branded Ali a liar and a fraud.

23 August 2002 Russell Skelton claims that Ali had told him he had lived in Quetta for 2 years at a time Ali was in Woomera, claimed a new story for the family and they were branded liars and cheats.

30 August 2002 is the first time the Pakistan documents appeared and they only mirrored the data from the news reports.

In September 2002 Skelton further claimed that a friend of Ali’s in Melbourne, a city he had barely entered, was really someone called Haji Asquar who was a businessman in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Pakistan.

From the time the two boys escaped from Woomera in July 2002 as little boys the media were complicit in the government campaign of vilification and until the day the family were wrongfully deported the catch cry from all media was “they claim they are Afghan refugees, but the government says they are from Pakistan”.

The price of a non-compellable ministerial discretion in this case has been that the family were only ever allowed to be together in detention or out of the country. Over a four year period the following living arrangements existed.

LIVING APART

Ali – Port Hedland from October 1999 – August 2000. Roqia and the children in Pakistan.
August 2000 – December 2002 – Sydney as a genuine, ASIO cleared Afghan refugee.
December 2002 – January 2003 – Villawood after cancellation
January 2003 – December 2004 – Baxter until deportation.

Roqia – January 2001 – January 2003 – Woomera with 5 children
January 2003 – June 2003 – Baxter, with Ali and the children
June 2003 – July 2003 – Woomera housing with three girls
July 2003 – June 2004 – Arkaba Motel alone and from October with baby
June 2004 – December 2004 – House in Dulwich with all 6 children
December 18 – 30 2004 – Baxter housing.

COSTS

Ali – $219,166

Roqia $1,290,000

Children – $1,430,000

Total – $2,940,000

Court costs have been quoted at $600,000 and deportation at $250,000 meaning a total cost of refusing to tell Roqia that Ali was in Sydney in February 2001 was a collective detention period of 297 months or 24.75 years and $3.79 million.

After I put this to the senate for investigation I was told that individual cases would not be looked at, even though David Corlett had done his own investigations for his book “Following them Home” and talked to Alamdar in Afghanistan.

Then came Paul McGeough’s investigation which proved conclusively that Roqia and the children were from Afghanistan and Amanda Vanstone said on 30 December 2004 “even if Mrs Bakthiyari had been born in and lived most of her life in Afghanistan she can go to Pakistan”. But this is not the truth and she had already been told it was not the truth. Roqia was never interviewed by Pakistan because the Pakistan authorities would know that she and Ali cannot speak the language at all, as even the government knew all along.

After that report Andrew did start the investigation in the senate and it only took a day to discover the entire Pakistani story was bogus. But he knew that in April 2004 when the family asked me to give him the file for questioning and the RRT senior member admitted that all the Pakistani documents used were known to be bogus smugglers documents.

In Ali’s case he didn’t even use the stupid documents, Roqia didn’t use them and even if Ali had been a Pakistani her claim was not tied to his by DIMA so why was she locked up for all those years.

As an aside Ali’s first cousin who came with Roqia on the boat and his wife and 5 children were also deemed to be Pakistani’s for nearly 4 years and then released finally as definitely Afghans.

DIMIA have also stated that of all the 104 cases tested by the IDCU 103 are still here.

Roqia was just a girl given to an older man when she was 15 years old. Ali describes the marriage ceremony during the days of the Russian invasion this way “we tried to marry in the family but if not the parents arranged the girl. The man would put the shawl on the shoulders of the girl and the first man with 6 shots off got the girl.”

Her cousin described to McGeough – “we used our girls like slingshots in those days, we slung them at the first man who came along”.

Yet it is Roqia who Australia never heard from until a few days before they forced her away to the wrong country on illegal documents that has been demonised as some kind of 20 headed medusa.

Roqia is just a beautiful, gentle natured girl like all the Afghan girls who was thrown away like rubbish by her father and tortured by Australia.

Little girls of 9 and 10 are being sold now in Afghanistan as brides which is why not one other Afghan girl was sent back from the mainland – in actual fact this is the only family of Afghans ever forcibly deported and DIMIA confirmed it last week.

Instead of the critics who simply claim I am obsessed and deranged carping and whining and abusing this poor family why don’t you read some facts.

Andrew asked this from my perspective – this is not my perspective, these are the facts of the matter.

Jan 28th, 2006
Geoff

Look Marilyn… you have no real proof to back up your claims. yet you call me a prat and a fool and a cruel creature. You carry on about children and how lovely everyone is, except of course me and the rest of us who haven’t been taken in.

Now I have to rely on the authorities doing their job. Some of the things you say are facts, some are just opinion and some are quite probably faqlsehoods. You don’t know for sure which is which. How can you? You were never there just like me.

But the fact they now live overseas and are not in danger means to me tey don’t need an Australian protection visa and so are not real refugees. Is that simple enough for you.

When the boys were interviewed they made it perfectly clear they never want to have anything to do with people like you again. Is that simple enough for you.

Jan 28th, 2006
Geoff

The family’s supporters remain adamant they are Afghan refugees.

But unless Vanstone and her department really are liars or incompetent, and the Refugee Review Tribunal and several courts are all wrong, the evidence says the Bakhtiaris are not refugees, as defined by the United Nations convention, but a plumber and his family from Pakistan hoping to make a better life in Australia.

Jan 28th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Geoff do you seriously think I would have written all of that without a trace of evidence? DIMIA have been proven to be wrong in so many cases Geoff and still you are prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt over this family. For the record many people in Australia are in touch with them constantly so we know what is going on.

As for DIMA being incompetent – give me a break – a turnstile of stuff ups. The man was never a Pakistani plumber for god’s sake he can’t read or write a bloody word.

He dug ditches for latrines, Roqia’s cousin simply said he lived in the village of Balaw Daoud for most of his marriage to Roqia except when he was seeking work in Iran and Pakistan sometimes.

Again, Geoff, why and how on earth could I make such detailed claims if I don’t have the evidence.

The senate has the evidence for heavens sake – read the transcripts from the hearings.

It was all a mistake. Kapeesh? A rotten miserable mistake because a kind girl looked after a sick mum on a boat.

Other refugees from the boat including Ali’s cousins have talked to me about how kind she was to the pregnant women on the boat.

Answer me Geoff. If they had a rich life in Pakistan with a nice wealthy plumbers shop why didn’t they simply apply for a visa and come as rich migrants.

You are tedious. Why do you feel you are entitled to slander everyone who disagrees with you on this and still can’t find an ounce of compassion for a little baby boy who nearly died on arrival in a foreign country in the coldest winter on record.

You are the cruelest and most stubborn person about this and I want to know why you think it is OK to torture and torment the wife of a Pakistan plumber for 4 years when she is not a Pakistani and no one ever said she was? Who are you to think it is OK to lock her up because he might be something or might have done something.

The department started with one small lie, told another, then another, made one document and then another until it snowballed into something they could not fix.

Now the truth is coming out. DIMIA said in three questions on notice to Senator Kirk that I got on Wednesday – Roqia was deemed a Pakistani citizen due to her marriage to a Pakistani.

But that is just not the truth as the person deemed to be a Pakistan is 10 years younger than Ali and his name is Asghar Ali instead of Ali Asqar and the person is not even an Hazara.

Do you know how people can tell that? Because Ali is an Hazara and the boy in the photo they used is not.

Jan 28th, 2006
Geoff

To answer your first question Marilyn… yes.

Jan 29th, 2006
Geoff

GEOFF THOMPSON: Nine months after being deported from Australia, Alamdar and Montazar Bakhtiari appear on camera for the first time. They are on a two week holiday in the Pakistani city of Lahore after spending 2005 in the country they have always called home – Afghanistan – where the Bakhtiaris have again settled in the capital, Kabul. The Bakhtiari boys have travelled here with Pakistani visas in their Afghan passports, which they didn’t want filmed because they don’t want to agitate the Australian Government. They invited Lateline to meet with them because they have a message for Australia’s Government and its people. Alamdar Bakhtiari is now 16 and his brother Montazar is 14.

ALAMDAR BAKHTIARI: The thing I want to say is…first of all I would like to say sorry to the Government. It was all advocates, all the lawyers forcing us to fight against the Government which we were not doing it, so basically we were going to get visas – but the lawyers didn’t want that happen, the lawyers wanted all the asylum seekers to be free at once. But everything has it’s regulation, rules. The Government did everything by rules, but advocates wanted all asylum seekers to be out at once.

MONTAZAR BAKHTIARI: The lawyers didn’t really help our family at all at the end and I just would like to say that whatever goes on from now on, on behalf of my family I would like to say that they have nothing to do with our family anymore and if anything is going on we would like to negotiate with the Government as a family and I would like all the advocates, all of them, not to do anything to the Bakhtiari family anymore because I don’t my life to get even riskier and riskier just because of them.

GEOFF THOMPSON: The people that fought for your cause in Australia will be perhaps hurt or offended by what you’re saying. I mean, is it entirely fair to say that they were doing it for their own self interest.

MONTAZAR BAKHTIARI: I’m not saying that probably all of them. Probably of about 100 per cent, I would say that about 40 per cent wanted that. But of the other 60 per cent which were working behind the scenes, they knew everything about our family, they just wanted to help, but the other 40 per cent just wanted to become famous and destroy our family basically – that’s what they wanted.

ALAMDAR BAKHTIARI: If they wanted to help us, why are they not talking to us today – nine month, 10 month have past, there was no email, they haven’t even called us yet, they are sort of pretending that they don’t have our number.

GEOFF THOMPSON: Tell us the story of what happened to you since you left Australia?

MONTAZAR BAKHTIARI: Were deported in Pakistan and then it took quite a while to go back to Afghanistan and then we needed more time to get used to the atmosphere, especially at that time, the winter was started and the weather was so cold, and we had a lot of things we were short of and then we needed to provide that to our family to survive because my brother was sick and a lot of other problems we had. Anyway, we got through that.

GEOFF THOMPSON: While in Australia there were many conflicting accounts about the Bakhtiari’s family history. The Bakhtiaris maintain they have never lived in the Pakistani border city of Quetta as the Australian Government has claimed. But tonight Alamdar Bakhtiari says, that like many Afghan refugee families, they travelled around a lot.

ALAMDAR BAKHTIARI: Before we come to Australia we stayed in Islamabad for two to three years and my dad used to work in Islamabad, then before that we lived in Iran. Then went to Iran, then we had to go back to Afghanistan then we came, my dad, my dad used to work in Iran and so did his brother. He’s in Iran as well. My dad brought money and then we came to Islamabad. Then he worked up here until our work was done, then we were sent to Australia.

One more time for Marilyn…
I have to rely on the authorities doing their job. Some of the things you say are facts, some are just opinion and some are quite probably falsehoods. You don’t know for sure which is which. How can you? You were never there… just like me.

But the fact… they now live overseas and are not in danger means to me they don’t need an Australian protection visa and so are not real refugees.

Is that simple enough for you?

When the boys were interviewed they made it perfectly clear they never want to have anything to do with people like you again.

Is that simple enough for you?

The family’s supporters remain adamant they are Afghan refugees.

But unless Vanstone and her department really are liars or incompetent, and the Refugee Review Tribunal and several courts are all wrong, the evidence says the Bakhtiaris are not refugees, as defined by the United Nations convention, but a plumber and his family from Pakistan hoping to make a better life in Australia.

Do you understand that Marilyn? Do I need to repeat it yet again? Whether Afghan or Pakistani (and I think Ali is probably an Afghan who spent a lot of time in Pakistan) they are NOT refugees.

Jan 29th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

I’d prefer this debate to all be on a stand alone Bakhtiari thread (I might even move it all there if I knew how)

However, in response to a couple of specific things Geoff has said:

(a) Ali was actually found to be a refugee. That was later cancelled when DIMIA decided he’d fibbed and was actually a plumber from Pakistan. I think it’s now pretty clear that belief of his changed identity was mistaken.

(b) Whilst there were a number of Court cases, none of them made (or were able to make) determinations on the nationalilty of the Bakhtiaris. Courts considering appeals on refugee decisions can only consider questions of law, not the merits of the case.

Jan 29th, 2006
Geoff

Both of which have no bearing on the final determination. If you’d care to show where anything in my last post is wrong I’d be interested. .

Then you could also bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities

Even the boys disagree with things Marilyn has stated. One would think they are a more reliable and accurate source.

Jan 29th, 2006
Ken

You guys are nuts – but at least entertaining – I think geoff deserves more creative monickers than those currently on offer. Oh by the way all this happens becasue of property rights (not the legal sought we know but possessive rights) and human differencwes – it aint chnged since
Moses.

Jan 31st, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Geoff you don’t understand a single thing about Afghans do you? Have you ever talked to any I wonder? In Afghan culture the children are not told about such things. Those poor kids think they told fibs to the government but perhaps this will dispel that notion – they have been told since by the way and have pleaded with me to continue until we get the truth.

When Ali arrived in Australia he was asked where he had lived. He said In Afghansitan and Pakistan. I left Afghanistan in March 1998 after being in a Taliban jail during 1997, my father was murdered, they stole our farm and our goods. My children were whipped by the Taliban and tortured. That was all agreed data by March 2001 for gods sake. And Andrew is right they never had any determination of their nationality and Andrew has got the damn files because I gave them to him.

Geoff your problem seems to be short-sight. You have to look at the culture of Afghanistan which has been driven back to the 14th century and stop looking at the facts as they are in Australia.

Andrew is right again – Ali was always found to be a refugee, DOB 1961 in Afghanistan.

And what a joke that last sentence is Geoff. They were locked up for 4 years without anyone ever asking them a single question.
Now here is a question – how many people on this forum who dare to think they have the right to vilify these children and their parents know them?

I will put up my hand because I met Ali in July 2002 at the family court when Justice Burr stood up to DIMIA and said “we are cruel to children”. I met Roqia at the family court just before she was whisked off to hospital in premature labour after DIMIA slandered her and libelled her and were hideously cruel when she was 7 months pregnant and in a motel under 24/7 guard with her children locked up in the jail that is Baxter.

I met the kids on 26 August 2003 the day after they were released from Woomera after 32 months – I can tell you for free that they were the most damaged children I had ever met so DIMA set out to damage them some more. You have not a trace of a clue what on earth you are talking about is the gist of it.

Andrew was in the court for one day of hearings in May 2004 and was literally shocked to the core at the cruelty. Vanstone had no legal basis on which to lock them up again but did it while Lander was considering the case.

Do you know that when the stateless and others who lost in the high court they were not locked up again – because the courts had released them.

Not even 10 criminal deportees were locked up again. Just 5 little kids.

As for the authorities having it – again what a joke – the authorities pulled off the whole scam and made all the phoney documents. They are with the senate which is the only place that could deal with them.

And they have been used in the media and more keep coming.

Do you really, really think I am a fool who would set myself up for libel or slander or worse if I said what was not true?

Actually I wish they would so I could expose them. Instead of blindly groping around for ways to prop up your bigotry think about the reality.

One family out of 4,000 were not refugees when even their cousins were is just ludicrous and would mean we spent upwards of $1.5 billion to find 1 lot of “frauds”. Give me a break.

The only thing Ali didn’t tell anyone was that he worked in Iran and Pakistan as did every other Afghan after the Russians, the Mujihadeen and the Taliban had flattened Afghanistan. No-one ever asked him where he worked and he got a refugee visa anyway.

Actually if you know how to use the court website you could look up a high court case called s 134 of 4 February 2003 and scroll down a few pages until you get to the bit where it says “Afghan”.

It is Roqia’s case – the only one she ever had.

I could post every court case if you wanted but you are set so I won’t bother. The boys know from one week to the next what I am doing and they bless me each time they talk to mutual friends who also support me all the way.

Feb 5th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Actually Geoff, I will come clean and state that I got the documents I am citing from DIMIA under FOI for Roqia – they just gave them to me 3 weeks after she was sent to Pakistan without documents.

They are DIMIA documents I am citing, not mine or anyone else’s. DIMA know that because my name is on the bloody FOI request dated 14 September 2004. Interestingly there is a print out of her nationality dated 17 September saying she was an Afghan citizen.

Feb 5th, 2006
Geoff

I work with Afghanis Marilyn a point I’ve made b4 and it seems you’ve ignored.

If you’d care to show where anything in my last post is wrong I’d be interested. .

Then you could also bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities

Even the boys disagree with things Marilyn has stated. One would think they are a more reliable and accurate source.

Feb 5th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd

Geoff you don’t read – I have given it to the authorities who will be able to make it public. And everything you say is wrong. The children were getting wrong information from someone with an axe to grind against people who looked after them. Don’t know what his problem was, well yes I do, but the mother and father didn’t want him near the children. They believed the interest of man in his 60’s was a bit strange when he only wanted one boy.

Geoff, you don’t know the family, you never talked to them, I have done everything I could.

Let me tell you how frustrating it all is.

A lawyer in Sydney didn’t read simple things in the file such as Ali was told on 24 December 2001 that a language analysis showed he was from Baluchistan. Trouble is they didn’t do the test until April 2002. The lawyer should have noticed that.

I have had Father Frank Brennan read the files and advise – the case was in such a disastrous mess due to shenanigans by early 2004 that as an experienced Senior Counsel all he could advise was media and the parliament because legally the case was closed by the privative clause. This is all public knowledge. His conclusion was that we had an Afghan refugee whose visa was illegally cancelled and his wife in prison for years for no reason – they always said she was an Afghan.

Andrew had the files and ascertained the information that the Pakistani documents were considered bogus by both DIMIA and the RRT although DIMIA tried to use them in 27 cases. With the latest numbers 14 have their visas back because the RRT rejected the documents. They are all years old and have been obsolete for 6 years in Pakistan but the Sydney lawyer didn’t bother to discover any of that. It’s all freely available information so I don’t know why not.

They were also thrown out because the refugees didn’t apply for them, didn’t use them, they were only photo copies and at this point there are no Afghans left in detention anyway, which you would know if you work with Afghans.

I gave the files to a journalist on the request of the family and she did nothing with it. 4 Corners investigated for weeks and realised they had a major scam happening with Pakistani documents but then they cancelled it. One journalist kept making up more and more stupid stories and I even now have the evidence of that.

Geoff, the most terrible thing about your statement that the boys would know more than me is that for 4 years no one in authority listened to a word they said and all they were ever asked is where they came from.

And they said Afghanistan. If you really work with Afghans you should know they only answer what they are asked and then it is literal and they don’t discuss things with their kids.

As for the evidence that Ali was a plumber from Pakistan – that was gossip that was rejected by the RRT. He was an Afghan plumber, which means the poor man dug ditches and emptied slop buckets as the toilets in Afghanistan are nothing more than holes in the ground.

I could claim that Andrew is not really a politician but a chook, and I could say it over and over again but it still wouldn’t be true would it.

Ali was not and never has been a Pakistani plumber. He has never had shops in Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait or Pakistan.

As for the department being incompetent and liars. Where have you been for the past years.

Cornelia and Vivian ring any bells for you? How about the scandal of the children unthrown?

Actually they are so incompetent they are terrifying. I believe Comrie called the treatment of Vivian as catastrophic and the report makes me ill.

Get over yourself Geoff. DIMIA were wrong, they knew they were wrong and they simply didn’t care.

For heaven’s sake they are so stupid that on the unendorsed Pakistani travel document they claim the baby was born in Quetta. He was conceived in Baxter and born and raised in Adelaide so how is that even remotely possible.

They use Ali’s father as a reference that he is a Pakistani, Ali’s father was murdered by the Taliban in 1997. When it got to the crunch of the RRT the only thing the member relied on was a newspaper report by Russell Skelton and even that said Ali was born in Afghanistan.

Jesus wept. The original interview is on http://www.indymedia.org.au and follow the prompts to Adelaide.

See for yourself – they turned a 18 year old Tajik or Pashtun boy into a middle aged man. Then after years of claiming he was born in 1957 they got confirmation that it was really 1971.

Give it a rest Geoff. The senate committee are well aware that DIMIA are incompetent, lazy, stupid, cruel and ridiculous.

You should read the submissions to the committee.

Feb 5th, 2006
Geoff

:roll:

Feb 5th, 2006
Wendy Lewthwaite

Floss. I am sure we could not go to your country and get on center link could we.? You did not answer one of our questions Floss. You just raved on about your past.Perhaps it was not such a good move to come here. We are all in charge of our own lives. You could always return home if the vegemite the cold pies are too much for your delicate mind.I have long said we need these people properly tested for mental health. You sound like the whole expereience was terrible for you as a kid. For that i feel sorry for you. I have a friend who came about the same time as you did. Also for your info i used to go down to the migrant camps from a young kid . Some kids you were not allowed to play with but we took treats food and gave free pony rides to the kids. Dad always gave the ladies floweres and mum helped with English classes. Tell you something . Those little tin huts with no air con shaped like a chook coop were their home. They NEVER complained not once. People from all over the world were different then Floss. If you think back you will also recall the kindness which i think you mentioned. Dont be so quick to judge . Dont be bitter because your kids will be bitter. You ARE lucky to be here. Its the best Country in the world and Ausies are great people Floss. Just give it a go. You may have been here for years but your heart is somewhere else. Perhaps you resent your family for dragging you through all of that years ago. Remember they did what they thought to give you a better happy life. Be happy for them and your kids.By the way few Ausies are racist.However I resent being called one just because i have my own ideas on how people should behave when they were not born here. You show no thanks or love for this country. That is what concerns me the most with many like yourself. They come they take and then they bag us. Doesnt seem right somehow. Are you working?

Feb 5th, 2006
Floss

Wendy, in answer to your questions and various statements above:

Re can you get on centrelink in my country: as I’m Australian and this is my country, I expect if you asked nicely and could demonstrate a need and that your claim is genuine, you would have the same right to benefits as any other Australian.

Re not answering questions: you have a question? Sorry must have missed that. I thought by placing the quote from your comment at the top of my comment it would be clear I was responding to that particular part of your comment.

Returning home: I am home.

Re mental health: I’m not sure why not liking cold meat pies means one needs one’s mental health tested? (I left out the vegemite cause I really like that now, though promite still ranks slightly higher, but marmite is a tad to sweet and the whole lots out the window for some really good freshly ground peanut butter.)

Re being nice to the people in tin huts: your parents sound like very nice people, thank you for sharing.

Re being bitter: how sweet of you to be concerned, but its OK I’m quite content oh and so are the kids (young adults actually – and just so you don’t need to ask: well adjusted and happy, oldest very responsibly employed full time, second doing well at university – with part time job to pay her way, third Year 10 – with part time job to pay his way.)

Re great Aussies and being grateful: But Wendy I am very grateful to the many Australians – born here and in many other places – who have been and continue to be my family, friends and mentors. They are wonderful and I treasure them. There are also many Australians – born here and in other places – who while not known to me personally, I admire and respect for their stance on any number of things. There are also some Australians I do not admire or respect at all, but you get that.

Re coming and bagging: I do apologise for not being clearer Wendy – there was no intent to ‘bag’ – the purpose of my previous comment was to say I don’t want things to go back to the way they were many years ago and to give some background as to why. I think Australia has come a long way since then. I’d like it to stay that way and continue to progress further down the road of tolerance and acceptance of diversity. I think that would be good for the children.

Re working: I think you want to know if I am gainfully employed – do I have a job – do I pay my way? Yes I do.

Feb 5th, 2006
Geoff

You don’t have to have a multicultural society to learn tolerance and acceptance.

To cook foreign cuisine.

To speak other languages.

To appreciate other cultures.

Feb 6th, 2006
Wendy Lewthwaite

Floss. All points taken. It just seemed unfair to me to jump to conclushions as to why the kids were rushed away from the media. As for people just coming.i guess Howard hear the Ausies when he said. we will decide who comes to our country and the conditions they come under. Equal rights. umm
There is a fine line between equal rights and over stepping the Mark. We want to help but we always have. We are by large a big hearted country with big hearted people. Do we want our Ausie way of life changed. No we dont. We used to sing God Save the Queen and say the lords prayer and fly our flag at all schools. Now we dont because it might offend people of other followings. Thats going too far. Way too far. I am pro Ausie and proud of it. We cant even say we dont like all the muslims taking over our areas with out being branded racist etc. Seems to me we need to look for other leadership if the Howard Government cant respect us better than that. We should be their first concern while new comers are considered. Migrants are not equal Ausies.They are quests to our lovely country. Welcome guest proving they dont try to take over. Which they are. Go to Lakemba and find anybody speaking English. Its insulting to us. Sorry.

Feb 9th, 2006
picture of zoroastrianism

Thank you!

Mar 12th, 2006
red crab

re post 2
dear marilyn
“The 53 Vietnamese who spent 2 years on that hell hole cost taxpayers over $50 million and they were refugees all along”.

what a lot of tripe you have never been there have you get you facts straight .i have seen the place .

Mar 12th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett

red crab

I’m not sure which bit of that quote you disagree with – maybe you are disputing that the Christmas Island detention centre is a “hell hole”?

Certainly the 53 people all ended up with visas (some of them sooner than 2 years it’s true, but it took that long to finalise many of them). I couldn’t vouch for the cost of $50 million off the top of my head, but there’s no doubt that this is by far the most expensive detention centre to keep people in.

I guess ‘hellhole-ness’ is in the eye of the beholder, and some advocates try not to use the term, as it can lead to others dismissing all concerns as nothing but emotion-driven. However, I’d have to say the current centre on Christmas Island would not be much fun to be stuck in either – certainly not for any length of time, and especially not while also trying to cope with the stress of possible deportation. The ‘room’ people have to sleep/live in is pretty tiny, and there’s only a few other common rooms for people to use.

Mar 12th, 2006
red crab

andrew.
you are right it looks a little cramped.butyou must also take into account what condiion thease ppl were living in before they got to christmas island .its like gowing from a tin shed to a five star hotel.i also saw where the West Papuans were housed and it was not at the detention centre.its better than woomera or pt headland.it mite be of interest to look at the new centre there and see who is acctualy involved in the poject as i have sead once before i have spoken to the man in charge of all the money. he was not an australian.

Mar 14th, 2006

The Bartlett Diaries » West Papua updates - Jan 21st, 2006
The Bartlett Diaries » More West Papua Updates - Jan 23rd, 2006

Bartlett's Blog

West Papua – asylum seekers and lessons from our history

Advertisement

53 Comments, Comment or Ping

Mini Posts

Radio chat on the election

Pre-election 'Debate' Farce

Mountains of Coal

Recent Interviews

Piece on The Drum about challenges ahead for the Greens

Wild Rivers

Listen in to Choose Mics

Blogroll / Other Links

Blogs I visit regularly

A very incomplete list of sites I visit less regularly

Latest Comments

Advertisement

Categories

Subscriptions

Meta