Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has identified asylum seekers congregating in large numbers in apartments as the type of ''antisocial'' behaviour that could see them thrown into detention under a new code of conduct for more than 20,000 irregular immigrants living in the community on bridging visas.

Under previous arrangements, anyone on a bridging visa alleged to have broken the law and facing criminal proceedings was returned to detention while the matter made its way through the courts, but the new code greatly widens the types of behaviour that can lead to the penalty.

These include ''antisocial and disruptive activities that are inconsiderate, disrespectful or threaten the peaceful enjoyment of other members of the community''.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison. Photo: Steven Siewert

''There have been complaints that have been received about antisocial behaviour in terms of overcrowding in particular accommodation that have caused a nuisance to nearby residents and distressed elderly residents as well,'' Mr Morrison said on Friday.

''Currently there's no provision to really manage that behaviour.''

People on bridging visas have extremely limited work rights and receive less than $250 a week in welfare payments. They can wait up to five years to have their refugee status determined under the ''no advantage test'' introduced by the former Labor government.

As a result, many can be crammed into accommodation to help save money, although Mr Morrison said this was not necessarily the type of overcrowding that would be deemed antisocial.

He pointed to ''large numbers of people turning up to particular places and places that are being rented, and that is not where they were living''.

The new code, and the example cited by Mr Morrison of antisocial behaviour, was attacked by the opposition, with Labor's immigration spokesman, Richard Marles, saying ''it reeks of being mean for the sake of it''.

''If people are breaking the law, there should be consequences,'' Mr Marles said.

''But one of the key standards in Australia is the standard of fairness.

''A situation where you don't break the law but you have simply upset someone and, without being tested, a person is put in detention or even sent off shore is concerning. That is not fair.''

Disobeying road rules, failing to comply with an instruction to undertake health treatment, or refusing to co-operate with officials as they review their refugee claims are also deemed to be breaches of the code.

Mr Morrison confirmed that asylum seekers on bridging visas could be sent back to detention without breaking the law, but he said it would require serial breaches.

''I think it is quite helpful to be quite specific with people who are given the opportunity to live in the community what is expected of them. To assume they just know is naive,'' he said.

He noted that in serious cases, asylum seekers in the community could be sent to Nauru and Manus Island.

Mr Morrison said the government wasn't contending that asylum seekers on bridging visas were more likely to commit crimes than the rest of the community but he pointed out that since the election, ''two illegal maritime arrivals have been charged with criminal offences each week''.

These include charges and convictions relating to murder, theft, indecent assault of a minor, assault with a weapon, driving under the influence, attempting to procure drugs, and people-smuggling.

Meanwhile, Mr Morrison said he didn't ''backflip'' when reversing his freeze on new protection visas for asylum seekers, arguing the regulation was no longer necessary because he has since introduced stronger rules.

But legal experts and the Greens say Mr Morrison is engaged in legal ''trickery'' and his new regulation would either be struck down by the High Court or reversed when the Senate reconvenes in February.

https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/62assistance.htm

The Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (ASAS)

The Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (ASAS) is administered by the department's contracted service providers. ASAS provides financial assistance to protection visa applicants, who satisfy specific eligibility criteria, to enable them to engage with the department in progressing their application for protection. The level of financial assistance offered to asylum seekers is less than that offered to Australian citizens under similar living arrangements. ASAS also facilitates casework assistance through professionals employed by the service provider to relieve difficulties experienced by vulnerable asylum seekers in the Australian community.

The ASAS eligibility criteria are described below. For those asylum seekers who arrived lawfully and wish to apply for ASAS, they should approach an office of the Red Cross in the capital city of their nearest state or territory.

Access to Medicare for asylum seekers

Some protection visa applicants may be eligible for Medicare, the Australian Government's health insurance scheme.

Further information on asylum seeker eligibility for Medicare can be obtained from the Department of Human Services website.

Fact Sheet 62. Produced by the National Communications Branch, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Canberra.

Hi Amir,

This is Katie from Asylum Seekers Centre. We spoke on the phone yesterday afternoon.

Sorry that ASC is not able to assist you further. As discussed, please find attached information on other services in Sydney you might like to try. In particular, you might like to approach Red Cross (Town Hall office) about Emergency Assistance, as well as ASAS. You might also like to speak with your Department of Immigration and Border Protection case officer about the CAS program. You might be eligible for CAS if you are planning on leaving Australia as you said yesterday.

In terms of health care/dental, I can only suggest that you try Haymarket Foundation. Their details are as follows:

Address: 165b Palmer Street, East Sydney NSW 2010

Telephone: 9331 1969

Email: sisters@haymarket.org.au 

I thought that the Dental Hospital might have been helpful too, but it seems that you have already tried them. Maybe the other services you are in contact with, e.g. Matthew Talbot and Foster House, have some ideas (although I assume you have already checked).

Again, sorry we can't assist further. I hope these services are useful.

Best wishes,

Katie

14.02.14 - Sydney Morning Herald

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison should not personally decide the fate of asylum seekers not deemed refugees. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen / Fairfax

A Senate Committee will examine on Friday whether or not Australia should get rid of laws that prevent our government from deporting people to places where they are at risk of being killed, tortured, or exposed to other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Known as "complementary protection", these laws were enacted only 18 months ago for good reason. Although the government acknowledges that international human rights law prohibits it from returning people to such abuses, it wants the Immigration Minister personally to decide every case. This would be a retrograde step. It would bring back enormous inefficiencies to a system that is already choked, and would remove the checks and balances that the current legislation provides. There is also a risk that some cases would never be examined at all, since the minister's power is completely discretionary.

The importance of complementary protection was highlighted last Thursday, when the High Court issued an injunction preventing the Immigration Minister from returning a 65-year-old Hazara asylum seeker from Afghanistan. The court held that the Refugee Review Tribunal had not properly considered his complementary protection claims, and there was sufficient evidence to suggest that if he were deported without proper consideration of his claim, he could be killed (as a number of other asylum seekers removed by Australia had been).

The case is important for two reasons. First, it shows why the government's proposals before Parliament to repeal our complementary protection provisions are worrying. The High Court found that previous decision makers had made a mistake in their application of the law. Yet, if this had been a purely discretionary decision by the minister, then a court wouldn't have had the power to review it. In other words, the man would have been deported and possibly exposed to death or other very serious human rights violations in Afghanistan.

 

Secondly, the case shows what a system of checks and balances is all about. As in any other areas of the law, it is important to ensure that decisions can be checked for error – especially when the outcome might be a matter of life or death. The problem with the government's desire to return to a wholly discretionary approach is that no review is possible. In fact, the minister can't even be compelled to exercise his discretion to examine the complementary protection claim in the first place. This means that there is no guarantee that an asylum seeker's claim that she might be tortured, for instance, will be assessed, and even if it is, then there is no way to have the decision reviewed. The result is that Australia may unlawfully send people back to serious harm, violating our international law obligations – and surely our basic understandings of humanity and decency – in the process.

This week, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (an even spread of Liberal and Labor members, plus a member from the Nationals and the Greens) concluded that the government's proposed changes to complementary protection not only risked violating Australia's non-refoulement obligations, but also contravened other rights under international law, such as the right to an effective remedy, the right to a fair hearing, and the right not to be arbitrarily detained. It said that the government's suggestion that the ministerial discretion process could satisfy Australia's human rights obligations was nothing more than "a series of unsupported assertions".

The Senate Committee would therefore be wise to recommend that complementary protection stay on the books. It is a transparent and functional process that allows for procedural fairness. It enables protection claims to be heard and disposed of more quickly. It is much more efficient than the ministerial process that the government wants to reinstate – a process that former Immigration Minister Chris Evans described as a vast waste of ministerial time, and tantamount to one person "playing God" with asylum seekers' futures.

Complementary protection implements Australia's international obligations in a clear and systematic way, and provides for checks and balances. It brings us into step with what other democratic countries do, like the 28 countries of the European Union, as well as Canada, New Zealand, the US, Hong Kong and Mexico. And it does not lead to an opening of the floodgates: last year, only 57 of 1200 protection visas granted onshore were for reasons of complementary protection – less than 5 per cent. In short, the government's proposed repeal of complementary protection and return to a non-compellable and non-reviewable discretion is at odds with Australia's absolute duty to respect the principle of non-refoulement under international human rights law.

Jane McAdam is Scientia Professor of Law and the director of the Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW.

18.02.14 - IOM

UNOFFICIAL

Dear Mr Bodenstein,

 

I am writing in regard to our previous conversation about obtaining assistance from this Department in liaising with the Lithuanian authorities about your application for a Lithuanian passport.

 

The Department is unable to assist you in doing this, however, it may be possible for you to seek assistance from the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).  

 

The contact details for IOM are:

 

Suite 2, Level 11
49-51 York Street
Sydney NSW 2000

Ph: 02 9248 2160
FAX: 02 9248 2199

 

I hope this assists.

 

Yours sincerely, 

 

Vincent Tysoe
Onshore Protection NSW
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Telephone: 02 8862 6581

Hi Amir,

As I mentioned during our phone conversation earlier I have found some information that may be useful in accessing dental assistance.

I did speak with the Sydney Dental Hospital about people with Protection visas being processed accessing dental services.  The Patient Liaison Officer told me that the agreement the Hospital has with the Red Cross is that they only accept clients who have a Code 1 emergency complaint or injury

I then phoned the Red Cross who did advise that they have an Emergency Relief Department that has a lists of pro bono dentists they can link clients up with.  You will need to present to the Red Cross Office next week (this area of Red Cross is not staffed today or tomorrow due to staff on personal leave, so encouraged you to come to next week) and mention our office was in contact with them last week and they advised to present and ask for assistance.  They will do an initial assessment, basically what application you have in the system, what supports you are linked to, etc. and then will refer you to the Emergency Relief Department who will be able to do the link to dentists.

The address for Red Cross is:  Level 3, 464 Kent Street, Sydney

Let me know if you need any further assistance.

Best wishes,

Ruth

Ruth Graver

Electorate Officer

Office of the Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP

Federal Member for Sydney

Deputy Leader of the Opposition | Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs & International Development

Dear Amir,

Please find following an e-mail I have sent to the State Member for Sydney, Alex Greenwich, asking for advice on the policy for asylum seekers visiting the Sydney Dental Hospital.  I will let you know once I receive a response from his office.

If you would like to contact his office directly you can do so by phoning 9360 3053 or on e-mail at sydney@parliament.nsw.gov.au.

Best wishes,

Ruth

Dear Sydney EO,

I am writing on behalf of a constituent, Mr Amir Bodenstein, who is currently applying for asylum in Australia and is residing at the Matthew Talbot Hostel.

He is experiencing some dental issues and was hoping to attend the Sydney Dental Hospital.  I spoke with Angela Pappadopolous the Patient Liaison Officer who advised that the Hospital only saw asylum seekers who were experiencing extremely urgent (life threatening) dental issues.  If this was not the case she encouraged me to make contact with the Red Cross as the Hospital refers asylum seekers who do not fit eligibility to them. 

I have spoken with the Red Cross and arranged for Mr Bodenstein to visit them this week but after speaking with him they advised him there is an eight week assessment period even before they will be able to look at any dental assistance.  Mr Bodenstein contacted our office again this afternoon to advise that he has found a fact sheet that shows the information that was provided to me by the Hospital was incorrect and in actual fact they should be able to see him as an asylum seeker.  He is unable to provide me with a copy of the fact sheet but I said I would contact the State Member’s office and see if they were able to clarify if this is correct. 

Can you double check for me what the policy is for asylum seekers requesting assistance from the Sydney Dental Hospital.  I would greatly appreciate this.

Many thanks,

Ruth

UNOFFICIAL