Comments on: Detention Debt: Not Drowning, Waiving

By: Some good news! Migration Minister responds positively to public and parliamentary concerns - Andrew Bartlett

Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:53:40 +0000

...] readers of Crikey (and this blog) might recall some stories back in September last year detailing just one example of the gross injustice (and utter absurdity) of [...

By: Parliamentary Commitee report into immigration detention - Andrew Bartlett

Parliamentary Commitee report into immigration detention - Andrew Bartlett — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:07:18 +0000

...] time they have been kept in detention. This issue was the subject of a major piece in Crikey a couple of months ago. I hope this recommendation is acted on by the federal government as soon as possible. [...

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:47:08 +0000

That is a good topic, Itep, but rather off-topic in this instance. I’ll try to do a separate post on it in the near future.

By: ltep

ltep — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:10:54 +0000

Mr Bartlett… if you will pardon this off topic comment, I’m curious as to your perspective on the electoral reforms floated by Senator Faulkner, in particular the idea of having full Senate elections at each 4 year fixed election date.

I’m not sold on it myself and am worried about what their idea for the resolution of disagreements between houses would be, which as far as I can tell is absent from the ideas canvassed. Is this a chance for them to by-pass the Senate by stealth, for instance allowing legislation to pass after a period of 3 months?

By: Generic Person

Generic Person — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:27:33 +0000

Itep, if they enter the country unlawfully, they temporarily forfeit their right to liberty.

By: ltep

ltep — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:50:18 +0000

The safety of Australia’s coming above human rights is most certainly a communitarian way of looking at rights and not particularly liberal. A true liberal would most certainly defend such a fundamental right as the right to liberty to such a high degree to find the compulsory detention of those who have committed no crime repugnant.

I suppose you also have no qualms about the mandatory detention of children.

By: Generic Person

Generic Person — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:34:48 +0000

The rights of Australian individuals would be unaffected. My proposal deals with foreign aliens which may pose a threat to Australians.

Now we can all live with the fairies like the Greens, and potentially, Mr Bartlett where everyone comes to this nation with a good heart and good intentions thereby rendering border protection unnecessary. The facts of life are often vastly different and the safety of Australians must come first and 3 months detention is a small price to pay.

By: ltep

ltep — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:04:45 +0000

That’s a very communitarian, or perhaps utilitarian, perspective Generic Person and not particularly liberal. Whatever happened to the preservation of the rights of the individual?

By: Generic Person

Generic Person — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:23:01 +0000

Evans wants to use detention as a last resort. It should be used as a first resort, in my view. Border protection is paramount to the safety of Australians, and once you let illegal immigrants into the community with few restrictions, the higher the potential danger they pose to the community. The 3 month detention would allow sufficient time to make sure any relevant background checks can be performed. If nothing can be found in that time frame, then they should either be deported or be issued a visa.

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:02:11 +0000

So how does your approach differ from what you call the ‘laissez-faire’ approach of Chris Evans?

And why do you think it is a good thing to mandatorily lock people up, regardless of circumstances, yet also important that they only be locked up for 3 months?