Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

G'day. Webdiarist Jack H Smit writes:

It doesn't happen every day that a journo phones me to let off steam, but yesterday, following a press conference by Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone on the Baxter Detention Centre, it did. The journo just needed to let off the frustration of being subjected to an inordinate amount of government spin emanating from the mouth of the Immigration Minister. I suggested that my lines for a press release would include the notion of putting a silver seed feeder in a canary cage in the hope that the caged bird would be happier and sing louder.

So I went hunting for a transcript, and that quest shows that Webdiarists would do well keeping and building a database of reporters and journalists. It took about five phone calls before another good reporter with one of Australia's better dailies sent the transcript. Here it is, but not without my reaction in the form of my press release from yesterday. I'll also send to Webdiary as a comment the notes made during the press conference by another reporter.

Vanstone and other Ministers spend huge amounts of public money gettting their press conferences transcribed. Vanstone uses Media Monitors - perhaps that company has the whole-of-govenrment contract. Now we the people are paying for these transcripts, so why don't the ministers who get them put them up on their websites so we can have a look? Amanda's ministerial website provides her media releases and her very own 'photo gallery'. Where are the transcripts we paid for, Amanda? Afraid they'll show up your disgraceful record of evasion, lies and blame-shifting? Let's have a bit of "user pays" here, eh, not user gets us to pay and doesn't let us see what we've paid for! Anyone got detail on the cost to the people of Australia of transcription services for ministers? Anyone know what Media Monitors charges?

Transcript

Event: Press Conference
Date: 19/09/2005
Time: 11:00 AM
Item: Senator Amanda Vanstone discusses renovations at the Baxter Detention Centre and various other immigration issues.

Amanda Vanstone: We've come here today because, as you know, my room's a bit squashed for the number of cameras and we wanted to give you the opportunity to be able to see what we've got behind. 

We're making clear today, as we have on other occasions, that the Government's response to the Palmer Report will properly be described as Palmer-Plus.  Mr Palmer wanted, quite rightly, improvement to the amenity at Baxter and we're doing much more than that. 

By Christmas we'll have a new but temporary Visitor Centre and a new entrance, much less forbidding, much less foreboding, and a much friendlier, much user-friendly appearance to the entrance to Baxter. 

In addition we will, over the course of the next year, build a completely new Visitor Centre inside, which will have far more amenity than is available at the moment: plenty of seating space, covered seating space, air-conditioned areas, plenty of opportunity for internal bathrooms, proper screening, a much, much improved facility. 

So the first thing we're announcing as a part of Palmer-Plus is a new short-term entry, which is much more friendly, much less forbidding for visitors, and a long-term fix of that issue.

We're also putting in an oval, which will be suitable for hockey or football, which will be floodlit and available for night, and courts for basketball and for volleyball.  In addition to that, we are putting in a new cafeteria that will seat up to about 200.  That's being relocated from the now mothballed Woomera site, which will add to the enhancements to food that have already been made.

So a short form is: much more friendly Visitor Centre, much nicer Visitor Centre, much better internal facilities for detainees to exercise, and improvement to the catering facilities. 

In addition to that we will also be opening up, as Mr Palmer suggested, some of Baxter to give external views, although there's a slightly lesser priority to that in the sense that that was primarily as a consequence of women and children.  But we will be doing that.

Question: Minister, there are many who'd say why are you going to so much trouble for people who come to this country uninvited?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, a lot of the people in Baxter, of course, are people who did come to the country invited; they simply overstayed and loved what they saw and hadn't gone home. 

Look, we had an assessment done by Mr Palmer of the changes we needed to make, and the Government's made the decision that we will make those changes, and since we're doing it we may as well do it properly and that's why we're doing Palmer-Plus.

Question: Do you think this will end the protests and self-harm at Baxter?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, look, in relation to the self-harm it's very important to keep that in context - that's self-harm either actual or threatened.  And the number of incidents reported this morning could have had a bit more detail: for example, it could have been made clear that they're incidents - and in many cases they'll be the same person - repeat incidents of threats that may never be carried out.

That also includes very, very minor self-harm.  And against a detainee population over that period of some 20,000, I think, puts it in a bit more perspective.

I think people who want to stay in Australia will always resort-- some will always try and resort to a very unattractive type of protest in order to draw attention to themselves and hopefully to pressure a government, through the media, to give them the outcome they want.  But Australia has a very good record of not giving into such protests.

Question: Those changes to the services: it's often been described as too prison-like; are there anticipated changes?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, Mr Palmer made some very prescient comments in relation to Baxter: he pointed out that people referring to it as prison-like perhaps don't understand that there aren't bars, there are just windows and doors, and perhaps they haven't been inside Baxter.  But in any event he recommended the amenity of the whole place be improved and we're certainly doing that.

Question: Is the razor wire being taken down, as at Villawood, Minister?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, I thank you very much for that question, because there is no razor wire at Baxter.

Question: So will it still be an imposing fence line?  I see the fence is being changed.

Amanda Vanstone: Well, there is going to be-- obviously going to be a perimeter fence.  But the impression that people will be given when they arrive because of the Visitor Centre, as opposed to the pretty heavy gating that's there are the moment, will be a much more user-friendly approach.

Question: Senator, is this an admission the actual-- when Baxter was developed that it was substandard?

Amanda Vanstone: No, I don't think so.  I've, obviously, been to Baxter and I've been to other places and I think the conditions there compared to other places that I've seen in Australia and around the world, frankly, are pretty good.  But nobody likes to be in detention and especially if what they're wanting is to be given a visa to stay in Australia.

Question: What sort of cost are we talking about here Minister, all up?

Amanda Vanstone: Look, this will run into millions of dollars, just what you're looking at here today.

Question: Minister, on another topic: have you raced out and bought The Latham Diaries yet?

Amanda Vanstone: No.  Are they available today?

Question: I believe so.  Do you think you will be buying a copy?  It'd be an interesting reading, wouldn't it?

Amanda Vanstone: Look, I don't think I will because, I think, what I've already seen through the media tells Australia everything they need to know, and that is the current Labor Party wanted that man to be Prime Minister. 

Question: Do you think that it's given you more ammunition, given the Coalition more ammunition, against Labor?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, I think Government's job is to get on with its program and be judged by that as opposed to, you know, trying to demolish the Opposition.  It's the Opposition's job to do what's in the nation's interest, but they often forget that and try and demolish the Government.  But I don't subscribe to either of those theories; I think the Government should just get on doing its job, as we always have done, and not be diverted by these distractions.

The only thing I'd say about The Latham Diaries is it lets Australia see who the current Labor Party members would have had as Prime Minister if they could've.

Question: Does it worry you that the Liberals might get a bit cocky - Labor's hit a low point in the last week or so - that there might be a bit of cockiness creeping into your side?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, I hope that certainly doesn't happen.  The Prime Minister is a continual reminder to all of us of the need to just keep your head down, get on with your job, and don't take too much notice of, you know, what's happening on the Opposition side.  In the end Australians will judge us by the job that we do, not how poorly they think of the Labor Party.

Question: Minister, back to Baxter.

Amanda Vanstone: Mmhm.

Question: Is this going to be a benchmark for other detention centres 'round Australia?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, I think the changes we're making here are very, very positive changes: you know fabulous oval, floodlit, so people can play during the day or at night, available for football and hockey, you know basketball and volleyball courts, increased outside visits over and above the visits that are already held, a new and much more user-friendly entrance, and a much, much improved-- [mobile phone rings] oh sorry about that.  It's my phone.  Hold on, I'll turn it off for you.

Would you like to have that, Kevin?  Thanks.

KEVIN: Yes, I would. Thank you.

Amanda Vanstone: I'll start that again, hey?  Yeah.  [Laughs]

Look, the conditions at Baxter do need to be improved and when we've finished the job I think everybody will be very proud of it.  It will never be a fun place to be, but it will be very good.

Question: Minister, why do you feel you need to go to such an extent though: I mean floodlit at night for a hockey game?  At the end of the day these people are in detention, why are you going to such an extent?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, as I said, the Government has heard the message through the Palmer Report, you don't get too many opportunities to change a department in a big way, and so my own view is that you put - I think it's - your spinnaker up, catch the wind and make as much change as you can.

Question: Senator, do you know how many detainees have self-harmed?

Amanda Vanstone: It depends what you mean by self-harmed.  I mean the figures--

Question: The figure that's out today is 878, so--

Amanda Vanstone: Well, the figures in the paper reflect just what they say they do: and that's harm or threats of self-harm.  That's how we collect the figures; that's important because some people who threaten do, in fact, carry it out.

And in any event once they've threatened you need to watch to make sure their own safety's looked after because of a duty of care; so that's why we collect the figures that way, it just means that they're not terribly informative for people.

Question: If they're not informative, why collect them then?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, because they're not informative for people about how much actual self-harm actually happens; they're collected for our purposes in terms of when we have a duty of care and we have one as soon as a threat is made.

Question: Either way you look at it though self-harm's not a healthy thing to be doing and 878 people over three years is a very high number.

Amanda Vanstone: Well, against what benchmark do you say that?

Question: Well, do you think in the general community--

Amanda Vanstone: No, I'm just asking.  You've asserted it's a high number: against what benchmark do you say it's a high number?

Question: Well, in the general community.

Amanda Vanstone: I mean have you compared to a prison population, for example?  And Baxter's not a prison, I make that point, but--

Question: Do you think it's a high number?

Amanda Vanstone: Well I think, as I said, over a detention population over that period of, well, I think I'm advised about 20,000; and when you understand that within the 800 or so there'd be a smaller number of people because some people make repeated threats or repeatedly self-harm, and some of those people who self-harm self-harm in a very, very minor way.

Question: Are those rates, though, part of the reason for this philosophical shift by the Government …

Amanda Vanstone: No.  No.

Question: … to change the facilities at Baxter?

Amanda Vanstone: No.  Look, this front-page article in The Age today has got absolutely nothing to do with it.

Question: Senator, can I just clarify: the 878, they are instances of threats--

Amanda Vanstone: They're incidents, incidents of threats or actual carrying out, and there's not an indicator within there of the degree of severity when something's carried out.

Question: Are you reasonably relaxed about those figures?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, I don't think anyone who has responsibility for the immigration program and detention centres can be reasonably relaxed about any of it, frankly.  You know I get paid to do a job, not to be relaxed.

Question: Would you agree with Dr Jureidini's comments that this environment is conducive to self-harm, an environment that drives people mad?

Amanda Vanstone: Look, I'm not going to comment on what Dr Jureidini says.  I've seen some other comments he's made, which have appeared to the public to be comments about Baxter when in fact they relate to the Woomera Centre, which has been mothballed for some years, so I'm just not going into that debate.

Question: By saying that you're making this place friendlier though, …

Amanda Vanstone: Mm?

Question: … is that an admission that it has been fundamentally unfriendly, that it has caused problems?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, people have found it forbidding, and we're making it friendlier.  I mean I don't think there's any particular issue in that.

Question: Would it ever have changed though if it wasn't for the Palmer Inquiry?  Would it be the same in years' time?

Amanda Vanstone: Would what be the same?

Question: Baxter.  Would it ever have changed, would you have made it friendly, if it wasn't for the Palmer Inquiry?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, I believe in fact we would have.  I thank you for that question.  I should have set someone up to ask me that. 

When I first took on this portfolio the issue of user-friendliness of visitor centres was raised with me and one of the first jobs I did was instruct the department to improve the Visitor Centre at Villawood.  That has the highest number of people, the highest turnover and the highest rate of visitors, and it had a very, very small visitor area for people to go through for processing, about a third the size of the room we're in now.

And I was pleased to be able to open that centre not long after moving into the portfolio and it's now vastly improved: a space two or three times this size, similar to what we're looking at at Baxter, with appropriate seating, appropriate bathroom facilities, air-conditioning, lockers, you know ease of screening for luggage or gifts that are coming through.

So this is in fact the second one that we've done.  Well, the third actually, 'cause we improved-- I might say we also improved the centre at Maribyrnong.  So--

Question: Back to my previous question …

Amanda Vanstone: Mm?

Question: … about the facilities and will they become a benchmark for other detention centres.  Will these improvements be made elsewhere?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, I think the question I've just answered indicates that we've already made some of these improvements elsewhere.  We improved, very early on in my term in the portfolio, the visitor facilities at Villawood and they have been dramatically improved, we've improved the facilities at Maribyrnong, and we're now about to do the same at Baxter.

Question: Minister, you're making these physical changes …

Amanda Vanstone: Mmhm.

Question: … to the detention facilities per se; …

Amanda Vanstone: Mmhm.

Question: … are you doing anything to address the criticisms of the departmental blunders and flaws?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, this is really only a part of our response to Palmer; it simply relates to the physical amenity of Baxter.

I'm working with the Secretary - and the Secretary has a team that are focused on the recommendations - to ensure that we have a culture change through the whole department, not just in the compliance and detention areas but in the visa areas as well, to make it a much more user-friendly department.

The department now understands that the Secretary and I will say to them almost every day, "People, our business".  That's what the Immigration Department is about.

Question: Are you concerned that you could be liable to claims against the department because of past practices given that you're now moving to try and tighten things up?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, I'm not sure which particular past practices you're referring to.  I mean in any, in any, department there is always funding provided for defective administration, which regrettably sometimes does happen when you have government departments, especially large ones, that are dealing with such significant numbers.

So that's not uncommon; that's not particular to the Immigration Department.

Question: One of the most fundamental criticisms has been related to interpreters and translators and their lack of independence.  Is that something you're prepared to address?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, that hasn't been raised me about a lack of independence of interpreters and translators, but I'll have a look at it.

Question: On that note, is there any update on the Vivian Solon matter regarding blunders in the department?

Amanda Vanstone: No, there's not.  There was a Senate report and that's now been tabled and publicly available.  I note that some of the Members would have liked to have interviewed some of the Immigration staff involved and I note the media incorrectly wrote that up as that I had blocked the Immigration staff speaking before the committee.  That's just simply not the case.  What I did was refuse to instruct them to attend.

And the full report, the Comrie Ombudsman report, will come out some time in October I would expect and there people will be able to get the full story.

But I think, pretty much, the full story's already available.

Question: So Vivian Solon is still awaiting coming back to Australia?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, that's got nothing to do with the timing of the report whatsoever and questions as to why she remains in the Philippines are best direct to her lawyers.

Question: And are there going to be changes to the Migration Act after revelations that some detainees are working in kitchens and doing tasks that GSL is being paid for?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, there is an arrangement at detention centres, which is a voluntary arrangement, whereby people can partake in activities for a fee if they choose to do so.  It's entirely voluntary; no one has to do it if they don't want to.

Question: But is it appropriate that GSL is being paid for work that detainees are doing?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, you've got to-- The complaint on one hand is there's not enough for people to do; so if people aren't fully trained for a particular activity but they can contribute to that, it may be the most sensible thing you can do, to give them the opportunity to participate.

Question: You wouldn't regard it as profiteering though: using cheap labour in the form of detainees instead of hiring the proper staff?

Amanda Vanstone: Well look, I've said all I've got to say about that.  It's a voluntary opportunity, which no one has to partake in if they don't want to.

Question: And finally, just the 8000 student visas …

Amanda Vanstone: Mm?

Question: … that were being chased by the department, what's happening with that issue?

Amanda Vanstone: Well, the visas, we'll contact as many people as we can and make the court ruling very clear.  That's an example of just how extremely complex this area can be.

A student was sent a notice requiring him to attend - and an address was filled in for the nearest Immigration Office to him - and to attend to speak to a compliance officer.  The court held that the department shouldn't have put a particular address in, that he was entitled to go to any Immigration Office; and he shouldn't have been instructed to speak to a compliance officer, he could speak to any Immigration officer. 

Now, I think many Australians will look at that and think, well, Immigration really was trying to be of assistance to students by putting in the nearest address to their last form of address.

But in any event those notices are held to be invalid and we'll therefore be contacting as many people as we can to let them know.

Question: It's an expensive blunder though.  Does this mean 8000 students will now be queue jumping, to a degree?

Amanda Vanstone: No, no one will be queue jumping.  If a notice is invalid and their visa therefore remains valid they're not jumping any queue.

Question: So they could be brought back to Australia though?

Amanda Vanstone: Oh, brought back to Australia: if they've gone they've gone, but if they're here their visa would then become valid had some other activity not subsequently taken place which would invalidate it.

Thanks.

---

DIMIA wrong "95% of the time", Vanstone's Baxter Cage spruce-up disgusting

Media Release
Monday September 19 2005 16:45pm WST

"Lawyers working on submissions of Temporary Protection Visa holders of refugees from Afghanistan in the last year have confirmed to Project SafeCom that of all the Afghan TPV renewal applications - about 800 in total in Western Australia - the Department of Immigration's primary decision makers decisions were set aside by the Refugee Review Tribunal for 95% of the cases in the last year," said the WA Rights group today.

"That means that the Department got it wrong 95% of the time, even right up till this year, when they told already approved refugees, that after three to four years they are now "suddenly" not refugees at all, and on review by the RRT these DIMIA primary assessors have been assessed to be wrong."

"These figures correlate with submissions made by Project SafeCom to the Senate Inquiry into the Migration Act that's currently underway, in which Project SafeCom argued that three years ago the DIMIA was wrong on average 75% of the time, and that in relation to the most recent boat arrivals of Vietnamese refugees they were wrong nearly 100% of the time, as found on appeal."

"The revelations come at a day that the Minister for Immigration Senator Amanda Vanstone has introduced a "Golden Cage" concept to the Baxter detention centre - announcing better food, basketball courts and other Western sports facilities, and Project SafeCom spokesman Jack Smit commented on these changes, that the Minister is acting like a child who goes out and buys a miniature diver to keep the goldfish in the aquarium company, or like someone who puts a silver bowl in the canary cage so the bird may sing louder."

The Minister displays a disgusting level of arrogance in wanting to create a user-friendly, but life-long mandatory detention method, but all it is, is a measure of more spin and smoke and mirrors. Mandatory detention, and we know it now after the last five years with greater than ever confidence, is a broke and corrupt concept of control and government-sponsored torture. No silver lining, miniature divers, golden treadmills for caged rats will be able to undo the horrors and the desolation of the Howard government policies and treatment of refugees."

"Baxter should close, it, and the policies that created it, should be dismantled and never again should Australia engage in these horrendous practices that were introduced because Mr Howard wanted to win an election."

For more information: Jack H Smit, Project SafeCom Inc. phone 0417 090 130