User:Hammy.genny/sandbox

Answers to module 7 questions
- The media is my own work, written and scanned by myself - the file format is a Jpeg - Licence is -Category:government - The file is a title of the government department; the department of immigration and citizenship

Citizenship Test
The DIAC litigated the use of mandatory testing for potential immigrants under the Australian citizenship Amendment Bill 2007. The bill was amended in September 2007 and began operating October 1st of the same year through the implementation of the citizenship test The test consists of 20 questions testing the individual’s compatibility with Australian values. 60% of questions must be correctly answered for an individual to attain Australian citizenship. Australian multiculturalism is impacted by the implementation of the test as a differing passing rate was found between various ethnic and social groups in society . 97% of skilled and 80% of humanitarian migrants; those struggling to full fill documentation or considered stateless, passed the test. Individuals not deemed to contribute to the Australian economy were less likely to become an Australian citizen. The information booklets provided by the DIAC were written in native English language hence maintaining a physical barrier against individuals where English is the second language. The test was reviewed until the 5th June 2008 which led to research projects undertaken by the department to understand the outcomes of the test. The DIAC altered the Citizenship test to offer inclusivity assessing individual’s knowledge on democratic ideologies and practices'''. ''' Despite the alterations of requirements, the DIAC refused to change the language the information book was published therefore remaining in Native English.

Mandatory sentencing
The mandatory sentencing of refugees and asylum seekers in detention centres is a method of control used by the Australian government when processing applications. The establishment of the DIAC in 2007 saw the operation of Manu and Christmas island detention centres become abolished. The closure of the detention centres was granted by the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship; Senator Chris Bowen, stating this form of detention is a “shameful and wasteful chapter in immigration history” . The DIAC also removed the temporary protection during this time which was previously offered by the Howard government to successfully processed refugees and asylum seekers. The removal of these programs was short lived as the number of individuals seeking asylum, surged in 2009 who were referred to as ‘boat people’. The introduction of mandatory detention centres was later reimplemented on Nauru and Papua New Guinea for the purpose of short-term housing relief for refugees whilst their applications remained in the processing stage.

Nauru, Manus, and Papua New Guinea Detention Centres
The DIAC under the Gillard Government reintroduced the mandatory sentencing of refugees under the Australian government. The procedures were altered on August 2012 to send refugees and asylum seekers to process facilities whilst being assessed by the DIAC. The transfer was reintroduced on the 14th September 2012 and the refugees sent to Nauru, Manus and Papua New Guinea. The DIAC reintroducing this method was under the intention that it remained a short-term solution acting as housing relief for vulnerable individuals. The No Advantage Principle influenced the short-term detention centres making the process as fair and unbiased as possible. However, due to long waiting times and processing procedures the individuals remain behind the centres walls until completed.

The Malaysian Solution
The DIAC under the Gillard Government from 2010-2013 funded Indonesian refugee programs to limit the number of individuals entering Australia. The malaysian solution was an agreement between the Australian and Malaysian governments to transfer 800 Australian asylum seekers in return for 4000 processed Malaysian refugees. However, the Malaysian government were not signatories of the refugee convention resulting in a breach of section 198A of the Migration Act 1958. The High Court of Australia found that the solution had breached the act as Malaysia held no statutory protection regarding the treatment of the asylum seekers.

M70 V Commonwealth case (Malaysian Solution)
The M70 v Commonwealth case also referred to as the Malaysian solution involved two plaintiffs from Afghanistan. One in which was under 18. The two plaintiffs claimed refuge in Australia after disclosing, they feared going back to Afghanistan as they were shi Muslims who would be persecuted by the Taliban . Under the Migration Act 1958, the plaintiffs were deemed unlawful citizens and subjected to be assessed by the Refugee Protocol.

These individuals were involved with the Malaysian solution implemented by the Gillard government and were expected to be transported to Malaysia. This arose issues as Malaysia was not a signatory with the Refugee Protocol therefore would not be able to accept these unlawful citizens as they were not under statutory obligation to treat refugees and asylum seekers accordingly with Australian guidelines. The case was taken to the High Court of Australia and found that Malaysia was not bound to protect refugees and asylum seekers under the Migration Act. Furthermore, the High court ruled that the DIAC were not to remove the under 18-year-old plaintiff unless written consent by the minister of the DIAC was provided. The DIAC was held to account prohibiting the transfer of asylum seekers and refugees to a third country unless stated under international legislation .

Multiculturalism
The DIAC, define multiculturalism as the mixing of cultures creating cultural diversity “in the same locality, who share the aim of making a home for themselves and their families in a community within a safe, stable and cohesive nation" The DIAC promotes the integration of cultures through temporary and provisional visa applications. To acquire a visa the DIAC requires the applicant to agree to the Australian values which include accepting freedom of religion, speech, and dignity . The visa applicant must agree to the rule of law where everyone must be treated equally regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, disability, or any other differentiating characteristic.

Multiculturalism in Australia rose during the operation of the DIAC. During 2011-2012 over 9860 people became an Australian citizen. The DIAC implemented several policies to drive the rise in citizenship and migration into Australia by targeting skilled workers to join the Australian workforce and add to the multiculturalism experienced in Australia.

The level of skills that enter the Australian workforce advance due to the contribution of multicultural education and skill set. The greater level of skilled workers entering the workforce overall increases the income rate across Australia. The 2010 Settlement Grants Policy implemented by the DIAC in 2010 was a successful program aimed at increasing the resources designed to help workers enter Australia and the migrations workforce. The government injected over $1.2 million into this project. The ethno-specific project allocated resources to fund and increase the level of multiculturalism within the Australian workforce hence up-skilling the Australian workforce. Furthermore, policies implemented and targeted at processing, housing, and providing resources to refugees and asylum seekers provide the opportunity for individuals to create a new life away from their home country.

People of Australia Policy
This policy was implemented on the 17th of February 2011 by the Minister of the DIAC, Hon Chris Bowen. The Multicultural Advisory (AMAC) provide reports and recommendations focusing on various levels of cultural diversity in Australia including the integration of religion and the social and economic benefits and disadvantages of the growing cultural diversity.

Community placement Program Network
The CPN program was implemented by the DIAC to support refugees that have been processed in Australia by providing short term accommodation to relieve the stress when entering an unknown community for the first time . The CPN offers the opportunity for refugees to commence training and be guided by members of the team through a safe transmission mechanism.

Expert Panel program
The expert panel program was introduced in June 2012 by the DIAC to act as a recommendations tool and a check on the decisions and policies implemented by the government . The program reviews and provides recommendations toward the policies implemented to offer the most effective and protective systems are in place to support and control refugees. The program introduced the no advantage principle for migrants and refugees limiting the bias and the benefits traditional migrants endure when entering Australia.

Human Rights
Human rights are universal principles protected through rights accessible to all human beings regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, sex, or any other differentiating characteristic . Human rights are enshrined within the Universal declaration of Human rights, written in 1948.

Australia’s involvement in the protection of human rights involves becoming part of treaties, covenants and declarations for rights to remain protected under statutory legislation through ratification of articles. Australia is a signatory for the following:

"-       The International Covenant Of Civil And Political Rights,

-       International Covenant On Economic, Social, And Cultural Rights,

-       Convention On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Racial Discrimination,

-       Convention On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Discrimination Against Women,

-       Convention Against Torture And Other Cruel, Inhuman, Or Degrading Treatment Or   Punishment

-       Convention On The Rights Of The Child,

-       Convention Of The Rights Of Person With Disabilities."

The ratification of articles influences the policies implemented throughout government departments including the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

BZ and AD V Commonwealth 2011
BZ and AD V Commonwealth 2011 involved two 10-year-old girls seeking asylum from China referred to as BZ and AD. The human rights commissioner found that the DIAC had breached several human rights when detaining these girls . The plaintiffs were placed into restricted detention centres despite the less restrictive and punitive measures that were available. BZ and AD were placed into arbitrary detention against their will for unnecessary reasons, therefore breaching the human right to dignity and humanity. Additionally, the commissioner had found that the girl’s parents were questioned by the DIAC regarding information regarding the girl’s visa applications. However, the families and the girls’ best interests were not taken into consideration. The human right to privacy wasn’t respected by the DIAC due to the excessive questioning. The Commonwealth refused to provide any compensation to the girls for breaching the fundamental human rights to dignity, humanity and privacy and did not provide a written apology. However, the minister of Immigration had amended several sections of the ministerial interventions power on the 24 March 2012 including sections “345, 391,417,454, 501 J and 195A” to correct the ability for the government to breach these human rights .

Stevenovic V Commonwealth 2013 (DIAC)
This case involves the human rights commissioner inquiry involving the deportation of Mr Stevanovic in Australia. The plaintiff moved to Australia on the 9th October 1970 from Serbia with his parents at the age of 3 and a half. Mr Stevenovic was involved in several crimes including the “conspiracy to manufacture a prohibited drug and taking part in the manufacturing of prohibits drug”. The plaintiff was sentenced to 7 years and 3 months into Australian prison and was released on the 30th of September 2004. The DIAC cancelled Mr Stevanovic’s transnational visa whilst detained, therefore, was sent back to Serbia once released. The commissioner’s inquiry found that the DIAC had breached and disregarded the plaintiff’s human right to access their home country. Mr Stevanovic’s’ home country was deemed to be Australia since he was unable to speak Serbian and had no family in Serbia to live with. The commissioner recommended that the government should pay a $20 000 payment to Mr Stevenovic as well as forming a written apology to correct the breaches of human rights against this plaintiff.

Paul Family V Commonwealth of Australia (DIAC)
Mr Paul and Ms Saha were from Bangladesh and arrived in Australia 1996 and 1999 respectively. They arrived in Australia on a business visa with numerous unsuccessful applications for protection visas. These denied visas were reviewed under the Refugee Review Tribunal and affirmed to remain in place. The review led to the plaintiffs to be deemed unlawful citizens hence were relocated in 2011 to the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre. Both plaintiffs argue that removing the plaintiffs from Australia would result in the DIAC opposing to several acts of many covenants including the ICCPR; article 17(1) where no one should be involved in arbitrary interference into one’s privacy . Additionally removing these plaintiffs from Australia is found to breach oof the Convention of the Rights of a Child, article 3; where the best interests of children must occur when a decision is made. Removing the children. The children of the family were also transported to the detention centre whilst due to the parents’ status of remaining an unlawful citizen of Australia.