Bikie gangs in Nauru. The hypocrisy of Australian visa character tests

With corruption and bribery in Australia’s offshore detention regime exposed by whistleblowers, questions must be raised about whose character is being tested: the refugees or the government? Janet Pelly he asks.

Sydney Morning Herald And 60 Minutes It featured two whistleblowers sharing their experiences of bribery and corruption in Australia’s offshore detention industry. This includes hundreds of refugees who now face 30 years of exile in the region of $2.5 billion. Nauru agreement.

Ex-soldier Oisin Donohoe was supposed to work together Safe Hands SecurityThe contract was signed to provide so-called surveillance. NZYQ cohort. After some investigation, he learned that the company was partly owned by Finks International President Ali Bilal and that its employees were members of an outlaw bikie gang.

He resigned and reported the situation to the government, but said his concerns were ignored. He also said no security clearance was required and Australian Police were involved in the transfer logistics for the deployment. This contradicts the Home Office’s claims that they control everything that goes on in the Nauru programme.

Exile to a lost shore: human rights, climate and the Nauru ‘solution’

The second whistleblower is Deputy Home Affairs Minister Derek Elias, who oversaw overseas detention contracts from 2019-21. It alleges misuse of taxpayer funds amounting to at least $16 million in over-inflated contracts, payments for non-existent services and even public money spent to insure luxury assets.

In a similarly damning response 2023 surveyThe Home Office has defended the way it handles offshore processing contracts, saying it “has a robust contract management framework that has matured over the last decade”.

Transparency International Australia He joined calls for what he called the “conveyor belt of corruption allegations” to be referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

The issue has clearly taken on some heavy-handed political cover, with Nauruan President David Adeang making an unplanned, unpublicized trip to Canberra to meet Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke just days after the Safe Hands scandal broke.

Visa cancellation changes

It’s worth going back to December 2014 to understand the selective obsession with character tests. Peter Dutton had just taken over from Scott Morrison as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. He introduced Amendments to the Immigration Law This strengthened Section 501, creating much broader powers to cancel or refuse visas “on a character basis.”

This included a Partnership clause in relation to the ironically named Safe Hands Group. This means that if the visa holder has a past or present association with a group or organization suspected of criminal activity, their visa may be cancelled.

In a well-publicised edition, 158 bikes ($) Deported from 2015-18.

The Association article was not the only change. Others included:

• Extended discretionary powers: The Minister (or delegate) may cancel the visa in the following cases: reasonably doubtful person cannot pass character test – even if there is no conviction.
• Mandatory revocation powers for noncitizens sentenced to 12 months or more in prison. This may also include several minor convictions bundled together.
• Reduced appeal rights: Under section 501(3) of the Immigration Act 1958 (Cth), the Minister can personally revoke a visa in the national interest even if the person passes the character test. These decisions are not subject to merits review.

The speed of change was astonishing. Only 76 visas were canceled in Fiscal Year 2013-14. A year later, this number increased to 580. As of Financial Year 2016-17, this number was over 1,200; 1,500% in 3 years.

Interestingly, following the end of NZYQ and indefinite detention in Australia, cancellations and rejections increased rapidly again.

But these numbers don’t tell the whole story. The distribution of offenses is quite wide and the outcome of appeals against cancellation (rejections in the chart above) and the reinstatement of your visa after cancellation does not correspond to the seriousness of the visa breach or offence.

Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Many people I know in custody (past and present) find the inconsistency in decision-making (this ‘expanded discretion’) maddening.

A man whose visa was canceled (after being dismissed) due to criminal charges watched:

while people with serious crimes are released as a rite of passage

More than 10 years later, he remains in prison conditions as an ‘administrative detainee’.

A test of flawed character?

This is not an argument for sending more people to Nauru. This is a white-hot frustration with a system that allows “a conveyor belt of corruption allegations.”

condemning refugees to 30 years of exile and milking billions of dollars from taxpayers.

Due to the high level of confidentiality in contracts and subjectivity in decision making, it is difficult to know what is real and what is not. Likewise, there are real questions about who exactly is demonstrating bad character and on what scale.

What is clear is that the men who went to Nauru have no right to answer; Immigration Act in September changed even more to ensure that they are denied natural justice. Nickname given Anti-Justice Bill.

They were convicted by a “character test” that essentially trapped some. frees others and omits others entirely. Anti-Justice indeed.

This would be a joke if the stakes weren’t so high for the people involved.

Refugees from Nauru. Indefinite detention is a clear violation of the Supreme Court decision

Janet Pelly is a Melbourne-based refugee and detention rights advocate. He has been working at Human Rights 4 All since 2019.