Locked up, no hope of release

Over the last 6 years or so, ASIO has flagged approximately 50 asylum seekers (including children) as a security risk. They’re not accused of any crime, and they haven’t been tried. They’re just locked up – some for more than 5 years already. They’re not even told why!

Most are Tamils from Sri Lanka – flagged because of some association with the Tamil government that existed in many parts of Sri Lanka during the civil war. But many were actually required to work for this government. As cooks, accountants, and so on.

One is an Egyptian refugee and father of 6, who remains detained, even though the charges that led to his detention have since been found to be false, and entirely discarded by Interpol, and despite Australia’s inspector general of intelligence and security finding he was not a threat to national security.

Why no hope of release?

The UN demanded we release them, because we’re violating more than 150 human rights. But Abbott refuses. We can’t send them home, because that would breach the Refugee Convention. We can’t send them to another country, because no-one else will take them now that they’ve been flagged by ASIO. And we can’t try them, because they’re not accused of any crime.

So they just sit there and rot.

There’s an independent review process, and so far, it’s found ASIO got it wrong nearly 20% of the time (2 of 12 cases reviewed have been overturned). But the government wants to scrap it:

ASIO rulings in relation to the security risk posed by a person in immigration detention will not be reviewable.”

Does this seem right to you?

Even murderers get a fair trial. And these people are accused of nothing. Yet the government wants them to rot away in jail for the rest of their lives!

If we think these people have done something wrong, let’s try them. If not, then release them. Life in prison is NOT the answer.

I wrote to Australia’s Attorney-General, George Brandis

SUBJECT: Why are innocent asylum seekers imprisoned with no hope of release? The Hon George Brandis QC Attorney-General GPO Box 228 Brisbane, QLD, 4001

7 March 2014

Dear Mr Brandis,

Over the last 6 years or so, ASIO has flagged approximately 50 asylum seekers (including children) as a security risk. They’re not accused of any crime, and they haven’t been tried. They’re just locked up – some for more than 5 years already. They’re not even told why!

Most are Tamils from Sri Lanka – flagged because of some association with the Tamil government that existed in many parts of Sri Lanka during the civil war. But many were actually required to work for this government. As cooks, accountants, and so on.

The UN has demanded we release them, because we’re violating more than 150 human rights. But the Australian Government refuses. We can’t send them home, because that would breach the Refugee Convention. We can’t send them to another country, because no-one else will take them now that they’ve been flagged by ASIO. And we can’t try them, because they’re not accused of any crime.

So they just sit there and rot.

Fortunately, there’s an independent review process, and so far, it’s found ASIO got it wrong nearly 20% of the time (2 of 12 cases reviewed have been overturned). But the government wants to scrap it:

“ASIO rulings in relation to the security risk posed by a person in immigration detention will not be reviewable.” http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asio-to-review-security-findings-against-detainees-20130910-2tiak.html

Mr Brandis, even murderers get a fair trial. And these people are accused of nothing. Yet the government wants them to rot away in jail for the rest of their lives!

Please answer these questions:

• Will the government scrap the independent review process?
• If so, why? How can you justify such an action given that ASIO has so far gotten it wrong nearly 20% of the time?
• Do you think it’s right to keep people in prison when they’ve committed no crime?
• If not, why are they imprisoned?
• Do you think these people pose a security threat?
• If so, why can’t you prove it?
• Under Australian law, are people imprisoned if their profile suggests they may at some time in the future commit a crime?
• If not, why are you imprisoning these innocent people on the same basis?

I look forward to your specific replies to these questions.

Yours sincerely

Glenn Murray

Today, I received a reply

Dear Mr Murray

Thank you for your email of 7 March 2014 to the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, regarding refugees who are the subject of adverse security assessments (ASA) issued by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). The Attorney-General has asked me to respond on his behalf.

Security assessments are an important part of ensuring the safety of Australians. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) refers illegal maritime arrivals to ASIO for security assessment to inform decision-making. When this occurs, ASIO’s role is to assess whether it would be consistent with Australia’s security for a person to be granted a visa. ASIO’s priority and responsibility is to ensure that Australia’s security is not compromised. ASIO issues an ASA where it assesses an individual to be directly or indirectly a risk to security within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. Individuals are advised in writing by DIBP officers of the outcome of their security assessment.

It is the Government’s policy to detain asylum seekers who are the subject of ASAs and who have been assessed as being owed protection obligations, pending the resolution of their case. The Government will continue to explore third country resettlement options for those individuals.

The Government respects the professional judgment of ASIO. At the same time, the Government supports appropriate oversight arrangements of our intelligence and security agencies. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, an independent statutory office holder, plays a primary and comprehensive oversight role, complementing parliamentary committees such as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. There is also an Independent Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments who examines all the materials relied on by ASIO, including classified material, and provides her opinion and any recommendation to the Director-General of Security. The Government has made no decision to discontinue the Independent Reviewer at this time. The Independent Reviewer continues to work under the same arrangements as those under which she was first engaged.

To date, 21 cases have been finalised by the Independent Reviewer. In 18 cases, the Reviewer found the adverse security assessment (ASA) was an appropriate outcome. In three cases, the Reviewer found the ASAs were not appropriate. Having re-examined these three cases, the Director-General of Security issued new security assessments to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in respect of the three individuals. They have now been released from immigration detention.

I trust this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely Annette Willing Assistant Secretary Security Law and Capability Branch

They didn’t answer my questions

Not surprisingly, this response doesn’t answer most of my questions. So I replied with this:

Dear Annette,

Thanks for your reply. Much appreciated.

I’m glad that the Australian Government has no plans to discontinue the Independent Reviewer. However, I’m a little confused about how that claim sits with this statement made by the Australian Government before the 2013 election:

”ASIO rulings in relation to the security risk posed by a person in immigration detention will not be reviewable.” (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asio-to-review-security-findings-against-detainees-20130910-2tiak.html#ixzz2xrtyfEIe)

QUESTION 1 Can you please explain the above contradiction? Has the Government changed its mind on this issue?

Thank you also for the updated figures on the number of cases where ASIO assessments have been found to be wrong (3 out of 21). In other words, ASIO is getting it wrong more than 14% of the time.

QUESTION 2 Do you agree, given this very disturbing error rate of more than 14%, that the independent review process remains vital to the justice process?

I’m also comforted to know you are notifying individuals of the outcome of their security assessment.

QUESTION 3 Can you please provide verifiable evidence that these individuals were, indeed, notified in writing of the outcome of their security assessments?

I note also in your reply, you say that, “The Government will continue to explore third country resettlement options for those individuals.” QUESTION 4 Can you please explain why you think other countries might resettle these individuals now that they’ve been flagged as a security risk? QUESTION 5 Can you please explain why you think it’s another country’s responsibility to resettle these individuals, when Australia is legally bound by the Refugee Convention to protect them? Also, unfortunately, you seem to have overlooked my other questions:

QUESTION 6 Do you think it’s right to keep people in prison when they’ve committed no crime?

QUESTION 7 If not, why are these people imprisoned?

QUESTION 8 Under Australian law, are people imprisoned if their profile suggests they may at some time in the future commit a crime?

QUESTION 9 If not, why are you imprisoning these innocent people on the same basis?

I look forward to your reply to all 9 of these questions.

Kind regards, Glenn Murray

Today I received a second reply (which didn’t answer any of my questions)

Here’s the reply I received from the National Security Law and Policy Division:

Dear Mr Murray

Thank you for your email dated 4 April 2014 to the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, regarding asylum seekers who have been assessed as a security risk. The Attorney-General has asked me to respond on his behalf.

As noted in Annette Willing’s reply of 3 April 2014, security assessments are an important part of ensuring the safety of Australians. The role of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) is to assess whether it would be consistent with Australia’s security for a person to be granted a visa. ASIO’s priority and responsibility is to ensure that Australia’s security is not compromised. ASIO issues an adverse security assessment where it assesses an individual to be directly or indirectly a risk to security within the meaning of Section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

The Government notes that in the majority of cases, the Independent Reviewer has affirmed ASIO’s assessment. In addition, ASIO can and will issue a new security assessment in the event that new information of relevance comes to light. New information can relate directly to the individual, or to external factors such as changes in the security environment or other intelligence which formed ASIO’s judgment.

ASIO does not make decisions in relation to immigration detention. Detention, or otherwise, of individuals following provision of ASIO’s adverse security assessment is a matter for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. I trust this information has been of assistance.

Yours sincerely

Jamie Lowe

A/g First Assistant Secretary

National Security Law and Policy Division

I replied with this

Dear Jamie,

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, you have overlooked a few of my questions:

QUESTION 1 – Annette said the Australian Government has no plans to discontinue the Independent Reviewer. But the Australian Government said otherwise before the 2013 election: “ASIO rulings in relation to the security risk posed by a person in immigration detention will not be reviewable.” (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/asio-to-review-security-findings-against-detainees-20130910-2tiak.html#ixzz2xrtyfEIe) Can you please explain this contradiction? Has the Government changed its stance on this issue?

QUESTION 2 – Do you agree, given the very disturbing error rate of more than 14%, that the independent review process remains vital to the justice process?

QUESTION 3 – Can you please provide verifiable evidence that individuals are being notified of the outcome of their security assessments?

QUESTION 4 – Do you think it’s right to keep people in prison when they’ve committed no crime?

QUESTION 5 – Under Australian law, are people imprisoned if their profile suggests they may at some time in the future commit a crime? As per your advice, I’ll take up my other questions with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. Yours sincerely Glenn Murray

Help get these innocent refugees out of prison

Please write to or email (senator.brandis@aph.gov.au) Australia’s Attorney-General, George Brandis, demanding Australia either tries or releases these innocent people. And also demand that Australia does NOT scrap the current independent review process. You can use/adapt my letter above if you like.

And March in March. Thousands of people around Australia are joining a ‘march of no confidence’, on March 15-17, to tell the Coalition government they’ve had enough of secrecy and broken promises, of policies for the rich and powerful. To hold them to account. Marches are being held in dozens of cities and towns. Find a march near you…