Oz:Mentally ill woman wrongly locked up in detention centre

No contrition from a joking Vanstone
By Michelle Grattan
October 7, 2005/the AGE

JUST when you think Amanda Vanstone can't get more outrageous, she does.

Yesterday, she should have been contrite. You'd think,

having presided over the Immigration Department since October 2003, she might feel she ought to have noticed how appalling it was.



http://www.theage.com.au/news/michelle-grattan/no-contrition-from-a-joking-vanstone/2005/10/06/1128562943657.html

Have a listen to this:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/stories/s1476808.htm


Amanda Vanstone's behaviour towards Fran Kelly towards the end of this interview is outrageous.



I will be writing to her office, and that of the PM, complaining.


Anyone wanna join me?

Ah, sorry Deb, having a few problems with audio here & don't want to download any more programs after the past week. You wouldn't have access to a transcript of the interview, would you? Don't worry if it's time consuming, though. I heard Amanda on PM the night the report was released. She was very defensive & had a go at the ABC, too.

I have no evidence they do transcripts of Breakfast.


In short, she, as ever, said Kelly was mor einterested in furthering an agenda than listening to her (Kelly was pushing her on ministerial responsibility) and had a go at the ABC about that.

Then, as her voice on her mobile kept breaking up, and kelly was referring to that, carried on implying that kelly was lying about the breaking up, and using it not to hear anything that she didn't want to hear.


It was disgraceful.



Kelly's questioning was entirely proper.

Thanks, Deb. Yes, similar defensive stuff to the PM interview: the media campaign against the dept of immigration, etc, etc., .... particularly the ABC & its "agenda". Though it sounds as though she was even ruder in this particular interview.
Whatever happened to ministerial responsibility? Remember in the '80s a minister stood down from his position because of not declaring a teddy bear to customs? It was considered the "right thing to do" & he simply did it without a fuss . Unbelievable the number of times, under the Libs, that the minister "didn't know", or "wasn't aware" of some damning act of their department. What times we live in!

Here's my email. Copies to the PM and Fran kelly!


To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 9:23 AM
Subject: Minister's behaviour during Breakfast interview


I am writing to lodge my strong protest at Amanda Vanstone's behaviour during the interview with Fran Kelly on ABC's Breakfast Program on Friday 7th October.

She was being asked perfectly appropriate questions about Ministerial responsibility (given that we are supposed to operate under a Westminster system) given the intense criticism levelled at her department recently over its handling of people judged to be illegal immigrants.


First, the Minister chose to attempt to denounce these proper questions, ones which I think intelligent Australians want to hear asked and answered, as that old chestnut "ABC bias" ie as Kelly's wanting, as other ABC reporters do, Vanstone alleged, to further a political agenda.

I think it a sad day when such tactics are used by a Minister being asked perfectly proper and necessary questions.


Then, when her phone signal began breaking up (I hope she, or one of her minders, has now listened, with shame and regret, to the audio of the program, where the loss of signal is absolutely clear) she began accusing Kelly of lying about the connection problems to suit her own ends.


I sincerely hope the Minister has now apologized to Kelly and the ABC over her scurrilous accusations against an extremely professional and decent journalist, and I would hope to see such an apology aired as publicly as the accusations were.

Frankly, listening to this performance by your Minister, (although I am aware that she did not preside over many of the worst excesses of her Department) I am not surprised that a culture of evasion and bullying appears to have overtaken her department.

She has great power, and with that comes great responsibility. The display of attempted bullying and unfounded accusation damaged her, and the political process in this country, in the midst of an extremely serious and important debate about the way forward in this crucial matter.

Deborah *****

And to the PM:

I am forwarding to the Prime Minister an email I have just sent to Amanda Vanstone, regarding her behaviour at a recent radio interview.

I believe the Prime Minister should be aware of the opinions of the electorate about such conduct by one of his senior Ministers, when being asked about very serious matters.

Clearly, neither Minister Vanstone, nor the Prime Minister is likely to agree with my views about the seriousness of the Minister's conduct in this matter, nonetheless I believe it my duty in a democracy to voice shock at such inappropriate behaviour by a person in the Minister's position.

If I were to behave in such a manner under legitimate questioning about my professional behaviour and responsibilities in my working life, I would be disciplined.

Ministers in our government have great power and must, I believe, therefore hold themselves open to great scrutiny of their Ministerial behaviour. I know how difficult and stressful media scrutiny can be, and how irresponsible some journalists can be.

However, the matters on which the Minister was being interviewed are utterly crucial ones, and the current public debate is about people whose lives are being managed in a system which has enormous power over them. I believe it is especially necessary to be utterly accountable in matters where people's lives can be destroyed, and I believe that Ms Kelly was being absolutely professional and inappropriate in her conduct.

Frankly, I find it very disturbing that a person in Minister Vanstone's position felt it appropriate to engage in such bullying and defamatory behaviour.

The broadast in question may be heard here:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/stories/s1476808.htm

Kind regards,

Deborah *****

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 9:23 AM
Subject: Minister's behaviour during Breakfast interview


I am writing to lodge my strong protest at Amanda Vanstone's behaviour during the interview with Fran Kelly on ABC's Breakfast Program on Friday 7th October.

She was being asked perfectly appropriate questions about Ministerial responsibility (given that we are supposed to operate under a Westminster system) given the intense criticism levelled at her department recently over its handling of people judged to be illegal immigrants.


First, the Minister chose to attempt to denounce these proper questions, ones which I think intelligent Australians want to hear asked and answered, as that old chestnut "ABC bias" ie as Kelly's wanting, as other ABC reporters do, Vanstone alleged, to further a political agenda.

I think it a sad day when such tactics are used by a Minister being asked perfectly proper and necessary questions.


Then, when her phone signal began breaking up (I hope she, or one of her minders, has now listened, with shame and regret, to the audio of the program, where the loss of signal is absolutely clear) she began accusing Kelly of lying about the connection problems to suit her own ends.


I sincerely hope the Minister has now apologized to Kelly and the ABC over her scurrilous accusations against an extremely professional and decent journalist, and I would hope to see such an apology aired as publicly as the accusations were.

Frankly, listening to this performance by your Minister, (although I am aware that she did not preside over many of the worst excesses of her Department) I am not surprised that a culture of evasion and bullying appears to have overtaken her department.

She has great power, and with that comes great responsibility. The display of attempted bullying and unfounded accusation damaged her, and the political process in this country, in the midst of an extremely serious and important debate about the way forward in this crucial matter.

Deborah *****







Here is where one can contact the PM by the way!


http://www.pm.gov.au/email.cfm

Doh! Just realised the dumb typo, and sent an addendum correcting it.

"I believe that Ms Kelly was being absolutely professional and inappropriate in her conduct."


Grrrrrrrr.....I proof read and all!

Bravo. Good for you, Deb!

From AM this morning.

Can you believe this?

I'm gobsmacked!:

It's been revealed that during 2001 the Department of Immigration was getting bonus payments for every person held and deported from this country.

The information was obtained by the Federal Opposition in response to a 'question on notice' to the Department of Immigration.

The system of funding has since been reviewed and replaced.

Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone wasn't available for an AM interview this morning..... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1481115.htm

Ha! Some ******* surprise.

Remember this? Vivian Alvarez was wrongly deported to the Phillipines by the Australian government.:



Today's update. Justice at last. Well, financial compensation, anyway. :

$4.5m payout to Alvarez Solon for wrongful deportation
Jewel Topsfield and Andra Jackson
December 1, 2006/The AGE



Vivian Alvarez Solon
Photo: Sahlan Hayes

AUSTRALIAN citizen Vivian Alvarez Solon, who was unlawfully removed to the Philippines in 2001 after an immigration officer wrongly presumed she was a sex slave and an illegal immigrant, is believed to have been awarded $4.5 million compensation. ... <cont.>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/45m-payout-to-alvarez-solon/2006/11/30/1164777724375.html

Last Update: Monday, April 9, 2007. 7:28am (AEST)

Rau launches legal fight for compo


Compensation claim: Cornelia Rau was wrongfully detained for 10 months (file photo). (AFP)

More than three years since Cornelia Rau was wrongfully held in immigration detention, her legal team is still waiting for compensation.

Ms Rau was detained in 2004 for 10 months, first in Queensland and then the Baxter detention centre in South Australia.

One of her lawyers, George Newhouse, says proceedings have started in the New South Wales Supreme Court.

"The Prime Minister has already apologised to Cornelia, the fact is he apologised two years ago, so there has been an acknowledgment of wrong and I don't know why two years down the track Cornelia is still fighting for some form of compensation so she can get her life back together," he said.

Mr Newhouse says the Federal Government is dragging its feet.

He says he thinks the Government is arguing over who is responsible.

"I suspect that part of is the fact that the Commonwealth has contracted out the detention services at Baxter and they have issues with other people," he said.

Mr Newhouse says he is hoping for a settlement rather than a drawn-out court case.

He says it is a shame things could not be settled out of court as in the case of Vivian Solon.

"Unfortunately because of complications in this case the Commonwealth would prefer us to litigate at least in the initial stages and we're hoping that will bring about a mediated outcome," he said.

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews is unavailable for comment.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1892444.htm

I'm not too sure about this.

1. After discharging herself from a state run mental hospital

2. schizophrenic person is held as a suspected illegal alien

3. Speaks only German.

4. Gives Authorities several false identities.

now she wants to sue because Authorities were negligent?

National data base for missing persons might have helped, however I'd say she was responsible for her own predicament.

Source

Well, I don't really know how a seriously ill schizophrenic person can be held totally "responsible", dadpad. During her time at Baxter (detention centre) after she'd been handed over to the immigration authorities, & despite clearly disturbed behavior, she was locked in a room for 18 hours a day, for a week. And it was only as a result of media attention to her plight that her identity was finally established after 10 months.
I don't know what exactly sould be considered suitable compensation for her mistreatment, but she was definitely not treated responsibly. But then, this (2001 -2) was a particularly deplorable period of human rights abuses in Australian detention centres.

Man seeks justice after 5 years wrongful detention
Ben Schneiders
November 14, 2007/the AGE


THE Federal Government faces another humiliating compensation payout that could run into millions of dollars as a result of court action taken by a Vietnamese-born man.

Tony Tran, 35, was unlawfully detained for more than five years and badly bashed in early 2005 at the Baxter Detention Centre by a mentally ill inmate with a history of violence, a statement of claim filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria says.

He was also separated from his son Hai and not told by the Government in 2000 that Hai, then two years old, would be taken by the boy's mother to South Korea, the country of her birth. Three years later the boy was left by his mother with Mr Tran's brother in Australia and later placed in foster care for 14 months after the brother could no longer care for Hai.

Mr Tran is seeking compensation from the Federal Government for physical and psychological damage.

If successful, any compensation was likely to run into millions of dollars, said litigation expert Anne Gooley, from Maurice Blackburn Cashman.

"How do you compensate somebody for detaining them unlawfully for five years?" she said.

Ms Gooley expects the case to be settled before it goes to a full hearing.

In a similar high profile case, the Government settled with Vivian Alvarez Solon, who was wrongfully deported to the Philippines, for a reported $4.5 million. .... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/man-seeks-justice-over-wrongful-detention/2007/11/13/1194766676846.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

I wonder if this sort of cost may be finally what forces policy change?

There's a thought, Deb!

Maybe these compensation pay-outs will do the trick, when all else has failed? (But then, we're the ones doing the paying, aren't we, through our taxes. )

Yes.

AND we already pay for the detention anyway.


I guess we're just lucky, eh?