The whole process of detaining and interviewing people was nothing short of mockery. I have to stay anonymous as I am still scared of possible repercussions. I was present at the so-called “interviews” in some detention centres such as Curtin Base in Western Australia and Woomera in South Australia.
Interviews were conducted in a small barrack room; there was an applicant, immigration officer, an interpreter and so-called “legal representative” who had no access to his client and could not contact him even in the presence of the immigration officer.
In Curtin Base it was easy; most of the “illegal entrants” were Hazaras. Every single one of them repeated exactly the same memorised short statement: “I am Hazara, I am Shia and I am clean shaven.”
There was no individual assessment of the cases. It was described as a “joint application” and as far as I know all Hazaras got their visa after a very short interview (and the Howard propaganda was blabbering about strict health and security checks). During one of those interviews, an immigration officer from Perth went to the toilet. During this very short time an Urdu interpreter asked a legal rep whether he could help him to find out about the interpreter’s brother’s whereabouts.
“I know that he arrived in Australia”, the interpreter said, “but I cannot locate him — the lists of detainees are very confidential and I do not want to lose my job.”
I did not want to lose my job, either.
In Woomera, an Iraqi doctor asked (whispered to) the legal rep if he could get him any newspaper as he was going mad doing nothing all day with no contact with the outside world. The lawyer brought a Time Magazine in the next day and was sacked.
Regardless of this, the money was absolutely great. Qantas tickets from any part of Australia to the destination were paid for, the best hotels were paid for, full accommodation with free telephone calls, and a rent-a-car which required (only) my physical presence at the interviews (and only three interviews per lawyer daily were allowed) — for which I received about $3,000 per week. The rest of the day one could spend in the hotel swimming pool, restaurants, get a free car and do a bit of sightseeing, etc.
It was in public knowledge that Ruddock’s friendly Migration Agencies were “contracted” for “legal” decorum and that they in turn “subcontracted” lawyers and in some cases — the entire family. Those family members stayed in the job for months. They were getting mega bucks and made themselves known ie. at the pearl market in Broome.
Lawyers were sworn to secrecy and the Immigration Department personnel (officers, interpreters, compliance, interpreters, maintenance, etc) flew daily from Perth to Port Hedland or Broome (Derby), or stayed in hotels. They also had free accommodation in the local hotels, and the local businesses were booming: taxis, restaurants, hotels, pearl market, Japanese restaurant in Broome, rent-a-car, local airlines, etc.
I had never seen such a public money extravaganza in my life. Although I know that Labor introduced detention centres, and I am not a Labor voter, there was a huge difference between DIMA running the infamous centres and the private agency ACM.
ACM should be charged for incredible abuses of the detainees, most of them totally innocent. Instead, Ruddock would extend their contract. It’s a big mystery to me and some nasty comparisons come to my mind.
As has been previously acknowledged, Labor started a detention centre but Howard and his henchmen created mutiple “concentration type centres”. Ruddock was a sneering creepy bastard, happy to do his masters bidding without question. History recalls a certain dictator, who practised to a much greater degree the crime of detention and torture for political purposes. Smaller does not diminish the size of the horrendous barbaric acts committed in the name of the Coalition Govt at those detention centres. It will be thrown in their face at election after election for many years hence
As with your unnamed source, a previously signed secrecy agreement prevents me from identifying myself.
However, over the period to which the source refers, I was an advocate acting on behelf of protection visa applicants. I assisted applicants at Woomera, Port Hedand and Curtin (near Derby) in Western Australia and Baxter in South Australia.
For me and my colleagues who worked with me, it was damn hard work.
I can assure you there were certainly no 5 star hotels where I was. The “best hotels” were by no means luxurious. Also, as the detention centres were usually remote from the townships, we needed cars to get to our work place.
In any event, if Ruddock and Howard, et al, had not deemed it appropriate to send these people to remote and inhospitable detention centres, there would not have been the need to transport and accomodate the required human resources to get the job done.
Your source makes some very incisive and valid points, but from my perspective, if there was a gravy train, I was left standing at the station.
I worked for a few years as a low-level clerk at the RRT (Refugee Review Tribunal) in the early years of this decade doing various drudgery – opening hearings, photocopying files, etc., so I had good access to the files and a good understanding of the process.
The decision-makers were bound by a very strict interpretation of the definition of a refugee and a highly litigious government that would challenge anything it could if the decision was made to accept an applicant. Generally, however, the decisions makers (the ‘Members’) were a pompous, arrogant, cynical bunch of pr*cks who’d find any way of knocking someone back – as they operated singly and with little accountability (for instance, their decisions couldn’t be challenged on grounds of natural justice) this was fairly easy.
Generally the applicants in detention – actually a small proportion – had very strong cases, but this was generally not enough for the little gods who made decisions.
I was privileged to meet some fantastic legal representatives – both private and working for publicly-funded legal centres – who worked heroically against all odds. They and the tireless activists (often one and the same) should be remembered with gratitude by a nation that turned its face the other way. I was quite open about my opposition to refugee policy socially, but most people just didn’t want to know.
Regardless of current euphoria we must remember that Labor stayed more or less mute during this period and that terrible, irreparable harm was done to many, many people.
We need a national inquiry to get these stories out and prosecute the many people – pollies, public servants, DIMA/ACM employees – who are culpable in this shame. We also, as atonement, need to find those who were sent back and offer help to them or – if they were dispatched by their government – their families.
On the subject of the gravy train – witnessing the Intervention up here in the NT there is the same ridiculous expenditure on bureaucrats and contractors. Another scandal to come out in a few years when there’s nothing that can be done to change it.
I worked at Villawood and witnessed cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees many times. I was appalled and stunned that such systematic abuse was happening in the suburbs of Sydney. It’s absolutely true that the whole process was a farce. Many ACM people were making lots of money. If I hadn’t seen the whole thing for myself I would never have believed it could happen.
The notion that there was some kind of ‘gravy train’ for those involved in protection visa processing, whether they be DIMIA/DIMA/DIAC employees or legal representatives of asylum seekers, is utterly ludicrous. DIAC employees working in remote areas were entitled to basic compensation for travel costs (and I can assure you that there is simply no such thing as a luxury hotel in the few places where accommodation was available) as well as a very basic hardship/remote locality allowance that operated as a feeble enducement to get sufficiently experienced staff to work there. For legal reps of asylum seekers it was, if anything, even less financially appealing with a heavy workload and compensation that would represent a fraction of what they would receive in the private sector. The writer of this article either happened upon a lucky and unique situation where he or she was able to profit from the situation or, more likely, has pulled this story from his or her arse having been told something by a mate of a mate of a mate. Typically, Crikey publish it as gospel with no attempt at establishing its veracity or otherwise.