Australia's Ebola visa ban condemned

[loongdavid]

How does one restrict the right for an australian citizen to return to Australia?

By enacting legislation or the emergency powers under that legislation. Crown Ministers are able to make decisions outside of legislation if deemed to be in the national interest.

Obviously, should entry be denied for whatever reason to an Australian citizen holding an Australian passport he/she has the right of review by both the Immigration Review Tribunal and the Federal Court system.

[Tep]

The decision by the Australian Minister for Immigration to revoke any visa issued in west Africa in order to gain entry to Australia was made in his capacity as a Minister of The Crown and not as a member of any political party. It is a well established DofI / DFAT convention that visa decisions made in the name of Australia are done so 'a political'. The Minister's decision was extremely relevant to a situation that was getting more serious by the day. If visas had not been revoked there would not have been any other method by which foreign travellers having been exposed to possible infection within west Africa could have been refused entry to Australia. It would be the The Minister's opinion and on advice from a variety of government departments that it was far more expedient to deny travellers entry to Australia at their point of embarkation. It should be noted that this decision not only affects other nationals but Australians who may have been in west Africa for whatever purpose.

You used the word revoked and I was working from the title of the thread that said banned. So I went to the original post and re-read the BBC article. You are correct and this decision applies to current holders of temporary visas. I did not see reference to the position regarding future temporary visa applicants.

You argue that there was no other instrument to deal with these current temporary visa holders to establish that they were not a threat to the health and security of Australian citizens in Australia. I do not believe that would be possible. I was under the impression that immigration officers had wide discretion on allowing entry of persons even if they hold visas. Would this discretion not extent to the point of embarkation to require a quarantine period or some blood test or whatever might be needed to establish if the traveller is clear or not? I recall many times going through US immigration in airports in Canada when travelling to the US. I am not suggesting that this model should be adopted but surely there are tools available.

You talk about the a-political decision making process. You clearly have been or are a civil servant as was I. Senior Executive decision making always includes political considerations. That there is a process or structure to institutionally separate the political form the administrative, does not remove political influence.

Despite taking your points about the apolitical nature of this decision and the scope of its application, I am still quite convinced that it is wrong on a number of levels and I would still argue that it was influenced by domestic political considerations. I do not propose any conspiracy theories nor ascribe any manichean intentions by the current government although it is quite obvious that I oppose their immigration policies and its affect on multiculturalism. Consequently, I continue to add my voice to those who object and oppose this development.

Will we know if any of the prospective travellers have the ebola virus I wonder? And could not the Australian government have tried a nice letter to the handful of these people wanting to travel to Australia to ask them to please delay their travel plans for a period sufficient to establish if they had the virus or not? Probably so few people that the Minister could have handwritten it himself, in his Crown capacity of course.

[JDGRUEN]

If there was a political influence as to the PM decision on Visas ... I don't see the problem in it ... Political gain or not it is a logical position to take... Almost everything a PM or President could take these days has a political element ... sometimes a very blatant one ...

Bottom line Australians are better protected IMO because of the PM's actions...

[loongdavid]

You argue that there was no other instrument to deal with these current temporary visa holders to establish that they were not a threat to the health and security of Australian citizens in Australia. I do not believe that would be possible. I was under the impression that immigration officers had wide discretion on allowing entry of persons even if they hold visas. Would this discretion not extent to the point of embarkation to require a quarantine period or some blood test or whatever might be needed to establish if the traveller is clear or not? I recall many times going through US immigration in airports in Canada when travelling to the US. I am not suggesting that this model should be adopted but surely there are tools available.

You talk about the a-political decision making process. You clearly have been or are a civil servant as was I. Senior Executive decision making always includes political considerations. That there is a process or structure to institutionally separate the political form the administrative, does not remove political influence.

Despite taking your points about the apolitical nature of this decision and the scope of its application, I am still quite convinced that it is wrong on a number of levels and I would still argue that it was influenced by domestic political considerations. I do not propose any conspiracy theories nor ascribe any manichean intentions by the current government although it is quite obvious that I oppose their immigration policies and its affect on multiculturalism. Consequently, I continue to add my voice to those who object and oppose this development.

Will we know if any of the prospective travellers have the ebola virus I wonder? And could not the Australian government have tried a nice letter to the handful of these people wanting to travel to Australia to ask them to please delay their travel plans for a period sufficient to establish if they had the virus or not? Probably so few people that the Minister could have handwritten it himself, in his Crown capacity of course.

You are of course quite correct in that it would be very naive of me to suggest that political considerations were exempt from ministerial decision making. Having said that, the current government enjoys a large mandate from the last Federal Election for its border protection policies consequently, the minister would be well placed to make binding and 'controversial' decisions 'on the run'.

Although disagreeing with your political thoughts on this matter I too wish there had been a better way to deal with it. The speed with which this terrible disease spreads warrants quick action and that in itself and by definition is not always well thought through.

I wonder how 'Minister Hacker' would have handled the crisis?

[samran]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Actually ... the truth is different then from what is being discussed thus far.

The ban has little to to do with issuing Visas.

It specifically is ...

The Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has announced his department was cancelling temporary visas for people who had planned to visit Australia from the West African nations and said new visa applications would not be processed.

Permanent visa holders yet to arrive in Australia must undergo a 21-day quarantine process before departure.

Scott Morrison told parliament: "The government's systems and processes are working to protect Australians."

Source

Personally, I support this move.

It's smart politics because it's what the majority of Australians want (if the reports are to be believed).

Plus it reduces the risks for all Australians living in Australia.

.

I wonder how many visas need to be canceled. I reckon all of about 5 people.

It's not a bad move in itself, but to my way of thinking it really is all for show. There have been requests from the US and the UK for Australia to provide resource to stop the spread, and this is the best we do?

Must be hard being a Thai-Aussie, you just don't know where to plant your hat do you? You bag Australia in every post and the 'Aussie Way', someone must have really done a number on you mate, wanna talk about it?

Oz

Get your hand off it....

Where have I bagged oz? Or is having a independent view of this an affront to your sense of australianess?

I bag bogans. That's about it, but I didn't realise that bogans were the epitome of australianess for you.

Edited October 30, 2014 by samran

[samran]

How does one restrict the right for an australian citizen to return to Australia?

By enacting legislation or the emergency powers under that legislation. Crown Ministers are able to make decisions outside of legislation if deemed to be in the national interest.

Obviously, should entry be denied for whatever reason to an Australian citizen holding an Australian passport he/she has the right of review by both the Immigration Review Tribunal and the Federal Court system.

Is there currently legislation which restricts the right of australians to enter their own country? I'd like to know which act covers this.

[loongdavid]

Is there currently legislation which restricts the right of australians to enter their own country? I'd like to know which act covers this.

So far as I am aware, no.

However, as I have previously said, the minister is vested with powers that may, and sometimes do, apply outside of legislation. This is a fairly unique situation and I would not discount anything coming from this minister.

[Tep]

You are of course quite correct in that it would be very naive of me to suggest that political considerations were exempt from ministerial decision making. Having said that, the current government enjoys a large mandate from the last Federal Election for its border protection policies consequently, the minister would be well placed to make binding and 'controversial' decisions 'on the run'.

Although disagreeing with your political thoughts on this matter I too wish there had been a better way to deal with it. The speed with which this terrible disease spreads warrants quick action and that in itself and by definition is not always well thought through.

I wonder how 'Minister Hacker' would have handled the crisis?

Well, i don't know about the mandate since I've been here more than a couple decades and with only periodic trips back to Australia, I rely on my network here to keep me informed plus what little I get on the news media. I thought the mandate was more anti-the other mob who screwed the pooch with their internecine incompetence symptomatic of a party in its latter days of government. However, that said, I am not unaware of the groundswell on the immigration issue that has been around for some time. I once had a time out in my friendship with a former NZ Minister on that issue after we argued in Bangkok in the late 90's. The Afghan boat incident from memory.

I endorse your sentiments on the actuality of this health crisis. Again, we see the impact of poverty and inequality on the health and wellbeing of people.

Hacker always had the best intentions but had to endure Sir Humphrey's confounding prolixity about why he could not implement them. Until he fought the Euro Sausage issue and achieve the top office. Since Hacker's current US counterpart actually takes the same position as me (for the time being) on the issue of travel restrictions, then maybe Jim would have won this one and all Sir Humphrey would be able to do is send it to committee for a natural death.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Tep

[samran]

Is there currently legislation which restricts the right of australians to enter their own country? I'd like to know which act covers this.

So far as I am aware, no.

However, as I have previously said, the minister is vested with powers that may, and sometimes do, apply outside of legislation. This is a fairly unique situation and I would not discount anything coming from this minister.

Thanks for that. I do wonder if it is actually possible given the nature of citizenship and the rights it bestows on someone.

I can envisage a carrier refusing an australian if the carrier deemed that there was a public health issue but if somehow the person was medivaced in then I'm thinking it is difficult to stop entry. Having said that customs and perhaps health would have no problem endforcing an immediate quarantine.

Anyway, an interesting discussion.

[David48]

How does one restrict the right for an australian citizen to return to Australia?

By enacting legislation or the emergency powers under that legislation. Crown Ministers are able to make decisions outside of legislation if deemed to be in the national interest.

Obviously, should entry be denied for whatever reason to an Australian citizen holding an Australian passport he/she has the right of review by both the Immigration Review Tribunal and the Federal Court system.

Is there currently legislation which restricts the right of australians to enter their own country? I'd like to know which act covers this.

Passed earlier today ...

Foreign Fighters Bill passed by Parliament

Thu 30 Oct 2014, 12:47pm

The Federal Government's controversial Foreign Fighters legislation has been passed by the Parliament.

The legislation, which was passed by the Senate on Wednesday, passed the House of Representatives at lunchtime.

The new laws, which are designed to stop Australians fighting in overseas conflicts, make it easier for the Government to cancel passports and allow authorities to declare some conflicts as "no go" zones for Australian travellers.

Source

[David48]

^^ while it technically answers Samran's question above, it's not related to what we are discussing.

But you can't travel without a Passport and the Australian Government has the power to both issue and retract or cancel Passports ... indeed the Government 'owns' the Passport.

.

[samran]

^^ while it technically answers Samran's question above, it's not related to what we are discussing.

But you can't travel without a Passport and the Australian Government has the power to both issue and retract or cancel Passports ... indeed the Government 'owns' the Passport.

.

. Quite. But I think what you'll probably find is that they'll issue a one way emergency travel document so they can land to the open arms of the AFP.

[Andrew65]

^^ while it technically answers Samran's question above, it's not related to what we are discussing.

But you can't travel without a Passport and the Australian Government has the power to both issue and retract or cancel Passports ... indeed the Government 'owns' the Passport.

.

Refusing someone entry to their home country could run foul of the UN Convention on Human Rights. Then again if they are naturalized citizens, who knows? Also if it's an extraordinary/emergency situation, again who knows?

[Tep]

^^ while it technically answers Samran's question above, it's not related to what we are discussing.

But you can't travel without a Passport and the Australian Government has the power to both issue and retract or cancel Passports ... indeed the Government 'owns' the Passport.

.

Refusing someone entry to their home country could run foul of the UN Convention on Human Rights. Then again if they are naturalized citizens, who knows? Also if it's an extraordinary/emergency situation, again who knows?

I think that it is in the case of extraordinary circumstances that we have to be concerned with the use and possible abuse of powers. These circumstances may open the door for actions that may seem to be justified but are ultimately derogatory to the development of the democratic state. Such actions may be designed with only the circumstance in mind and not the impact or implication for other times. They also will have unintended consequences because they will avoid the usual processes.

There are channels to challenge such actions through the Courts but these may not be accessible for 'ordinary' Australians.

[David48]

Can this take the stupid road when thousands are dying?

Ebola and Terrorism ... Link is here

.

Edited October 31, 2014 by David48

[simple1]

^^ while it technically answers Samran's question above, it's not related to what we are discussing.

But you can't travel without a Passport and the Australian Government has the power to both issue and retract or cancel Passports ... indeed the Government 'owns' the Passport.

.

Refusing someone entry to their home country could run foul of the UN Convention on Human Rights. Then again if they are naturalized citizens, who knows? Also if it's an extraordinary/emergency situation, again who knows?

The Immigration Minister has made it clear that Australia is no longer bound to comply to UN Conventions applicable to his portfolio. Australia has been heavily critiqued for breaches, but the reality is 'don't care'.

On the Ebola issue 350+ medical workers have volunteered to go to West Africa, but still restrained by the government until formal agreements have been reached on evacuation / treatment plans if someone gets infected - a lot of anger in parliament on the delays

[David48]

Ebola: Canada suspending visas for residents of outbreak countries

Canada is following in Australia's footsteps and has suspended, effectively immediately, the issuance of visas to residents of the West African countries battling Ebola.

In a move that puts Canada at odds with the World Health Organization, the federal government said Friday it is suspending visa applications for residents and nationals of countries with "widespread and persistent-intense transmission" of Ebola virus disease.

The federal government said it would stop issuing visas in the worker, student or visitor class and won't issue any pending permanent residency visas for people from those countries either. Any applications already in the system will also not be processed at this time. The change, which goes into effect immediately, was announced Friday in the Canada Gazette.

The latest figures from the WHO suggest at least 13,567 people have been infected since this Ebola outbreak began, and 4,951 have died. The only nations which currently meet the definition of countries with widespread and persistent, intense transmission are Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia.

Source